Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

April 01, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember all of my posts about how fraud and contract claims don’t usually play well in litigation? Well, as always with the law, there are exceptions. For instance, a well plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim will survive a dismissal challenge. A recent opinion out of the Alexandria division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sets out another exception, namely so called fraudulent inducement. In XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truland et al, the Court considered the question of whether both a tort and contract claim can coexist in the same lawsuit when the tort claim is based upon the information provided to the plaintiff when that information proves false. As the courts of Virginia have held for years, only certain information and statements made pre-contract can be the basis for a fraud claim in the face of a contractual duty to perform. One type of statement that is not properly the subject of a fraud in the inducement type claim is sales talk or opinion. Such sales talk (for example claiming that your company is the best for the job) is not the subject of a fraud claim because it is not meant to be relied upon and that such talk is an opinion about future performance, not a false statement of present fact or intent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

April 02, 2014 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
Manhattan apartment sales surged in the busiest start to a year since 2007, setting price records as buyers vied for a limited supply of homes for sale and deals were completed at new high-end developments. Sales of co-ops and condominiums in the first quarter jumped 35 percent from a year earlier to 3,307, according to a report today from appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. The median price climbed 19 percent to $972,428, while the the average price per square foot rose 24 percent to $1,363, the highest in 25 years of record-keeping. Price gains are accelerating in a market where the inventory of homes for sale plummeted to record lows three times in the past year as buyer demand increased. Of the deals completed in the first quarter, 38 percent were at or above the asking price, up from 17 percent a year earlier, according to Jonathan Miller, president of New York-based Miller Samuel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

June 29, 2020 — Jacob W. Scott - Smith Currie
On June 5, 2020, the President signed into law the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, amending portions of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Most importantly, the PPP Flexibility Act adjusted the forgiveness requirements for PPP loans. The CARES Act allowed borrowers to apply for forgiveness of loan amounts used for payroll and other covered costs during an eight-week period beginning on the date of origination, or by June 30, 2020, whichever came first. The CARES Act also allowed borrowers to use the loan funds by June 30 to restore employee and payroll levels that had been reduced as a result of COVID-19. The Small Business Administration instructed borrowers that at least 75% of the loan funds had to be used to cover payroll costs during the covered period to be eligible for forgiveness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jacob W. Scott, Smith Currie
Mr. Scott may be contacted at jwscott@smithcurrie.com

The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

March 17, 2011 — Shaun McParland Baldwin

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury or “property damage” be caused by an occurrence and that the “bodily injury or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury” or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.

In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivanrsquo;s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing, including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com

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

“Since You Asked. . .”

October 15, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
… you must now pay. So said a California appellate court, affirming the trial court’s decision against a subcontractor suing for unpaid subcontract sums. Instead of being awarded those unpaid amounts, the subcontractor lost the case and was tagged with a $1.55 million attorney’s fees award and $270,000 costs award in favor of the defendants. What went wrong? California law requires a licensed contractor to maintain at all times proper workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The failure to maintain the coverage and have the certificate of coverage on file with the California Contractors State License Board results in “automatic and immediate suspension” of the contractor license. Retroactive reinstatement of the license may occur only if the contractor provides proof of the insurance within 90 days of the effective date of the insurance certificate – unless the contractor can show that failure to have the certificate on file was “due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.” 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

SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

April 11, 2022 — Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposal March 21—both anticipated and feared—that would require publicly-traded companies to standardize disclosure for the first time of climate-related business risks such as those related to severe weather and decarbonization. Exchange-listed firms would also have to report greenhouse gas emissions, their own and in the supply chain, creating a major reporting mandate. The rules also apply to firms listed on overseas exchanges that operate in the U.S. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

August 24, 2020 — Celia B. Waters - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Fresh off the heels of the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cty. (“Montrose III”),1 policyholders scored another victory as another California court rejected horizontal exhaustion in the context of continuous injury cases. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, in SantaFe Braun Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., adopted a rule of vertical exhaustion, holding that “[absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary] the insured becomes entitled to the coverage it purchased from the excess carriers once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted.”2 The dispute in SantaFe Braun began in 1992 when asbestos-related claims were first filed against Braun. In 1998, Braun’s three primary insurers agreed in writing to defend and settle the underlying claims against Braun while resolving allocation among themselves. In 2004, Braun filed the current suit against its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the excess insurers were obligated to help cover the costs of the underlying asbestos-related lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Waters may be contacted at cbw@sdvlaw.com

AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

February 18, 2020 — Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLP
Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.

The subcontract is in writing;
The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply. You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES