CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, in a recent ruling, a federal judge in Newark “ruled that an arbitration award should not be vacated based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his professional contacts with defense counsel during his prior career as a federal judge.” The plaintiff had sought to vacate an award “because he failed to disclose interactions he had with Dennis Drasco, the lawyer for the defendant, while serving on the bench. But Brown was not required to disclose his contacts with Drasco because they would not cause a reasonable person to question Brown’s impartiality, U.S. District Judge William Walls ruled Oct. 21,” reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The plaintiff’s assertions “suggest nothing more than that Judge Brown and Mr. Drasco were familiar with one another in their professional capacities,” Walls stated, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “[T]he federal trial of former construction company boss Leon Benzer and five others in a massive scheme to take over Las Vegas-area homeowners associations” has been delayed to February 2015 by U.S. District Judge James Mahan. Defense attorneys “argued they needed more time to review thousands of pages of new documents provided by prosecutors.” The prosecutors did not object to the delay. Benzer and the other defendants face conspiracy and fraud charges in an HOA takeover scheme that allegedly occurred between 2003 and 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

April 19, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc. On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

December 20, 2017 — Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although the homeowners did not own their homes when the subcontractors completed their work, the general contractor was still covered as an additional insured for the homeowners' suits based on the ongoing operations endorsement in the subcontractors' policies. McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017). McMillin was the developer and general contractor for the project. Among the subcontractors were Martinez Construction Concrete Contractor, Inc. and Rozema Corporation. Martinez performed concrete flatwork between 2003 and November 2005. Rozema performed lath and stucco work between March 2003 and October 2005. Lexington issued CGL policies to Martinez and Rozema. McMillin was an additional insured under both policies, "but only with respect to liability arising out of your [i.e., Martinez's or Rozema's] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin]." An exclusion provided that the insurance did not apply to property damage occurring after the insured subcontractor had completed operations on behalf of the additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

July 13, 2017 — Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Clearing up any lingering confusion, in Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. Woods, 767 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (June 22, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that residential forcible entry and detainer actions in Arizona accrue for statute of limitations purposes when a party entitled to possession makes a formal demand for return of possession not when the party could have made a demand for return of possession. In Carrington, the borrowers (the Woodses) remained in property that they had acquired in 2008 but then lost to foreclosure several years later. The original lender obtained title to the property at a trustee’s sale on February 16, 2010, but did not take any action to remove the Woodses at that time. Title to the property was then transferred through a series of transactions over the next six years. Ultimately, Carrington acquired the title and, in 2016, sent a formal “Notice to Vacate” the premises to the Woodses. After the Woodses failed to timely vacate pursuant to the demand, Carrington initiated an FED action to evict them from the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

---

Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

December 08, 2016 — Johanna Knapschaefer – Engineering News-Record
The Massachusetts Dept. of Transportation and a contracting team are in discussions regarding fabrication issues that caused a two-year delay in the completion of a key crossing between Quincy and Weymouth. The full completion of the $244-million Fore River Bridge replacement, originally slated for Jan. 5, 2017, is now projected for February 2019. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Texas Supreme Court has concluded in Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. that “the costs incurred by a builder to locate and repair damage caused by the builder’s defective product are covered under its general liability insurance policy.” Hunton & Williams have issued a Client Alert discussing the case. For the background of the case, Lennar built about 800 homes using EIFS. The EIFS trapped water and the homes suffered from rot, structural damage, mold, mildew, and termites. Lennar fixed all the homes so built, avoiding litigation. Lennar “notifed its insurers of the defects and invited its insurers to participate in the proactive remediation program.” A lower court had agreed with Markel, one of Lennar’s insurers, that the losses were not “caused by property damage,” and that Lennar should not have made “voluntary payments without Markel’s consent.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejecting Markel’s argument and affirming the jury’s finding. According to Hunton & Williams, the implications of the Texas Lennar decision is that it “confirms that all insurers with policy in effect at the time of property damage are responsible for all sums for which the policyholder is liable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---