CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

May 07, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
For every week in May, the International Code Council (ICC) will spotlight a specific area of building safety. The theme this year is “Resisient Communities Start with Building Codes.” ICC’s first week focus is “Don’t Get Burned – Build to Code,” and the second week the focus changes to “Bounce Back Faster from Disaster – Build to Code.” Next, the ICC will present “Water Safe, Water Smart – Build to Code,” and conclude with “$save Energy – Build to Code.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

October 26, 2017 — Tiffany Casanova – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Last month, in Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 1 a California Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of the frequently asserted j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions of the standard commercial general liability policy; an issue the court deemed one of “first impression” for the state. The court took a close look at how courts nationwide handle the exclusions and relied on the policy language to come to a policyholder-friendly decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

---

Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”



The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”



A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”



Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”



All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.



Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”



In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

“A No-Lose Proposition?”

October 07, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause. In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….” The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:

“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

June 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Negotiations for the Nevada state budget have stalled over proposals to amend the state’s construction defect laws. Assembly Republicans had offered changes to the law to make it friendlier to contractors; however, after a state Supreme Court ruling that the state could not move a local government entity’s funds into state coffers, pressure has increased on the governor to lift the expiration dates of taxes approved in 2009.

The Reno Gazette-Journal quotes John Madole, a construction industry lobbyist, “We agree with them that you have to address the issue of the attorney fees, and for all practical purposes, they are automatically awarded when anybody brings any kind of suit.”

Speaker of the Assembly, John Oceguera, a Democrat, has proposed a bill that “makes it absolutely crystal clear that the only time you get attorney's fees is if you're the prevailing party.”

Read the full story…

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

---

Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

January 14, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Timothy J. Abeska, a vice-chair of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Construction Law Practice Group, analyzed Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc. v. Fostcorp Heating and Cooling, Inc., 16 N.E.3d 426 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), which “provides an example of a court enforcing contract provisions rather than markings on construction drawings that are inconsistent with contract requirements.” The case evolved from a dispute on a construction of an IMAX theater, when the general contractor did not understand the architect’s markings for non-standard joist girders, and ordered standard joist girders, per the contract. The error created delays and other problems, which led to payment disputes and mechanic’s liens against the project. Abeska stated that “[t]his case shows the importance of making sure all documents which comprise a construction contract are consistent with each other, as courts will enforce contracts negotiated by the parties. The case also demonstrates that litigation is not a quick process, as the Court of Appeals Opinion was issued more than seven years after the project was completed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

January 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A disagreement over signage potentially blocking rooftop owner’s views has stalled Wrigley Field’s proposed $300 million renovation, reported the Chicago Tribune. However, a recently lawsuit filed between the two entities regarded allegedly false statements made by Marc Ganic, a Chicago sports business consultant, published in the Chicago Sun-Times: “In the story, Ganis is quoted as saying the rooftop clubs were ‘stealing’ the Cubs product for their own profit,” according to the Chicago Tribune. The rooftop owners claimed in the suit that “they have a contractual arrangement with the team that allows them to sell tickets to people who want bird’s-eye views of the game.” The Chicago Tribune attempted to contact Ganis for comment, but he “did not return several messages.” The rooftop owners and the Cubs entered into a “20-year agreement in 2004 in which the rooftop owners pay the Cubs 17 percent of the team's yearly profits in exchange for unobstructed views into the ballpark,” according to ESPN. “The Cubs dispute that notion, however, contending the unobstructed views were guaranteed through the landmarking of the bleachers not with the agreement they have with the rooftop owners.” Business president Crane Kenney explained to ESPN that the city council amended the landmarking rule for the field: “[The council has] now recognized the outfield is not a historic feature. And above a 10-foot level we can have signage. That was the big win last summer, among many. That's what the rooftops would contest.” According to ESPN the Cubs will not start the renovation project until they have an agreement with the rooftop owners “that includes a guarantee not to sue the Cubs for breach of contract, which would delay construction.” Read the full story at the Chicago Tribune... Read the full story at ESPN... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

June 15, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Accepting the insured's amended complaint, the federal district court of Hawaii remanded the coverage action to state court. Hale v. Lloyd's, London, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9061 (D. Haw. Jan. 17, 2020). Hale purchased a policy for his home in Hilo, Hawaii, from Defendant Pyramid Insurance Centre. The policy was memorialized by a Lloyd's Certificate issued by Defendant Lloyd's. On September 19, 2017, Hale entered Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Included in the bankruptcy proceeding was Hale's home and a secured home mortgage loan now owned by Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. The Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge order on January 18, 2018. On May 9, 2018, Hale's home was destroyed, being covered with lava from the Kilauea volcano eruption. Hale filed a claim with Lloyd's based upon the loss of his home. The claim was denied. Subsequently, however, Lloyd's issued a check for the full amount of the policy. Both Hale and Specialized Loan were listed as payees on the check. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---