Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

March 16, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In responding to a certified question from the Ninth Circuit in T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, the Washington Supreme Court has held that an insurer is bound by representations regarding a party’s additional insured status contained in a certificate of insurance issued by the insurer’s authorized agent, even where the certificate contains language disclaiming any effect on coverage. To hold otherwise, the court noted, would render meaningless representations made on the insurer’s behalf and enable the insurer to mislead parties without consequence. The certified question and ruling stem from T-Mobile USA’s appeal of the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Selective Insurance Company on T-Mobile USA’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. Selective issued the insurance policy at issue to a contractor of T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA. Through endorsement, the policy extended “additional insured” status to T-Mobile NE because the contract between T-Mobile NE and the insured required that T-Mobile NE be added as an additional insured. Additional insured status was not, however, extended to T-Mobile USA, as T-Mobile USA had not entered a written contract with the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

August 03, 2020 — Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
Over the past few months, guidance on how to create a safer, low-risk workplace has frequently changed. Fortunately, the state of California has finally reached a point where comprehensive and concrete advice is now available. On June 24, 2020, the California Statewide Industry Guidance to Reduce Risk website was updated. In addition to providing industry-specific guidance and opening checklists for approximately 40 different industries, the website now unambiguously requires all businesses—regardless of which “phase” they reopen—to follow a five-step protocol (as described in greater detail throughout this article):

Perform a detailed risk assessment and create a site-specific protection plan.
Train employees on how to limit the spread of COVID-19. This includes how to screen themselves for symptoms and when to stay home.
Set up individual control measures and screenings.
Put disinfection protocols in place.
Establish physical distancing guidelines

Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

October 02, 2023 — Anna Basnaw - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In Cyrus Way Partners, LLC. (“Cyrus”) v. Cadman, Inc. (“Cadman”), the primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in denying Cadman’s motion to vacate the default judgment under Civil Rules 55 and 60. A default judgment is a legal ruling that can be entered in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit. If that happens, the court may resolve the lawsuit without hearing from the other side. In Washington, a party typically has 20 days to appear in a suit before being at risk for default judgment. If a default judgment is entered for the plaintiff, the defendant can move to vacate the default judgment, meaning the defendant hopes the court will set aside the default judgment as if it never happened. In this case, Cadman, the defendant, presents several ultimately unsuccessful arguments for why the default judgment in favor of Cyrus, the plaintiff, should be vacated. Cyrus and Orca Beverage Inc. (“Orca”) are under common ownership. In 2018, Cyrus began a project to build a warehouse for Orca, which included the construction of a large concrete slab. Cadman was hired to supply the concrete. Cyrus hired Olympic Concrete Finishing Inc. (“Olympic”) to finish the concrete. On April 1, 2018, Cadman poured the concrete, and Olympic finished the slab. The next day, Cyrus noticed several problems with the slab, which experts hired by both Cyrus and Cadman opined were caused by an abnormally high air content in the concrete. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Insurer Springs a Leak in Its Pursuit of Subrogation

August 21, 2023 — Katherine Dempsey - The Subrogation Strategist
In Nationwide Prop & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fireline Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00684, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104241, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (District Court) considered whether the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a previously formed agreement, thereby rendering the plaintiff’s claims subject to the agreement’s time limitation and waiver of subrogation provisions. The District Court found that the claims fell within the scope of the agreement. The plaintiff, Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Maple Lawn Homeowners Association, Inc. (Maple Lawn) for common property located in Fulton, Maryland, including a community center (the Subject Premises). On January 18, 2018, Maple Lawn entered into an Inspection Agreement (the Agreement) with defendant, Fireline Corporation (Fireline), wherein Fireline agreed to provide:

annual fire alarm inspection and testing services,
quarterly sprinkler inspection and testing, and
annual portable fire extinguisher testing and inspection.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Each of the 20 welds at the base of the tower of the Bay Bridge took more than four hours to complete, with the lengthy welds forming at one-and-a-half inches per minute. They’ve been finished for two years now, but inspectors are just now checking the welds for defects. Any defects found will have to be removed and repaired. Mazen Wahbeh, an engineer on the project, assumes that less than 5 percent of the total welded area will have to be repaired. According to Wahbeh, the bridge can open before the welds are thoroughly checked and repaired, and so “the contractor is prioritizing the remaining work.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

February 23, 2016 — David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Retention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work. The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the contractor “may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses

July 18, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Business loss is not limited to fire or smoke damage to its own property – it often arises from damage to the supply chain. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we look at what coverage may exist when wildfire damages an entity’s supply chain. In many instances, while the insured property does not sustain fire or smoke damage, wildfires can wreak havoc on the business supply chain. For some, contingent business interruption coverage may be a solution. Contingent business interruption insurance extends coverage for the loss of prospective earnings because of an interruption in the insured’s supply chain that is caused by damage to property that the insured neither owns nor operates.[1] Typically, the property covered is of a supplier or customer. For example, in 2000, Ericsson Telecom A.B., a mobile phone manufacturer, presented a substantial contingent business interruption claim based on a fire that damaged a Royal Philips Electronics semiconductor plant. Royal Philips supplied critical components for Ericsson’s mobile phones. The fire caused Royal Philips to close its plant, halting Ericsson’s phone production for six weeks, resulting in substantial losses. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

July 14, 2016 — Michael B. McClellan & Jason L. Morris – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law, creating a private federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. This landmark legislation, a product of bipartisan backing and significant support from the business community, will affect businesses and individuals operating in almost every economic sector across the country. The DTSA will potentially be at issue any time an employee with access to confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information moves on to a competitor or launches a startup that competes with the former employer. This will be true so long as the product or service that the trade secret relates to is either used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Under present commerce clause jurisprudence, the vast majority of businesses providing products and services in the United States will be affected by this new law. The DTSA will provide, for the first time, a codified federal civil remedy for misappropriation of trade secrets. Although most states have adopted some version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), there remains significant variation between the states in their application of the UTSA and litigants face significantly different statutory frameworks depending upon which state holds jurisdiction over the dispute. In addition, prior to this new law, litigants were limited to pursuing their claims for misappropriation of trade secrets in state courts, unless federal diversity jurisdiction applied to the dispute. The DTSA changes that dynamic, providing original federal subject matter jurisdiction over trade secret disputes. Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. McClellan, Newmeyer & Dillion and Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer & Dillion Mr. McClellan may be contacted at Michael.mcclellan@ndlf.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at Jason.morris@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES