CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

October 29, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss claims for loss due to the imminent collapse of the insureds' basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4364914 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2014). The insureds noticed cracks throughout their basement walls. It was discovered that the condition was the result of a chemical compound used in the concrete of certain basement walls in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The insureds contended that due to the cracking, the basement walls suffered a substantial impairment to their structural integrity making it only a matter of time until the walls collapsed. The insureds notified their insurer, Peerless. An engineer hired by Peerless determined the walls' condition was caused by poor workmanship and defective materials. On this basis, Peerless denied coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution Basis

March 21, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Since I don’t do insurance defense work, fights between insurers isn’t something I have to deal with. It’s good sport nonetheless. In the next case, Travelers v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. D078852 (October 15, 2021), three of the biggies – Travelers, Navigators and Mt. Hawley – got into it over indemnity. The Travelers Case General contractor TF McGukin, Inc. was involved in a construction defect lawsuit with respect to a condominium project. TFM entered into subcontracts with several subcontractors including F&F Steel and Stairway, Inc and Calvac Paving which required the subcontractor to defend and indemnify TFM against any claims arising out of the subcontractor’s work. The subcontracts also required the subcontractors to name TFM as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default

April 22, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it. An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:

Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.

Williams Building Company, supra.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a one billion dollar lawsuit, U.S. Navy sailors contend that they “suffered massive doses of radiation” from the Fukushima Dia-ichi nuclear power plant in Toyko, Japan while stationed on the USS Ronald Reagan, reported the Orange County Register. A tsunami (caused by a 9.0 earthquake) flooded the plant, “cutting off electrical power and disabling backup generators.” The USS Reagan was sent to provide aid, but the plant then “blew up” before they arrived. “Sailors on the flight deck said they felt a warm gust of air, followed by a sudden snow storm: radioactive steam,” according to the Orange County Register. “Freezing in the cold Pacific air. Blanketing their ship.” However, the Orange County Register posed the question, “Could the Reagan – one of the most advanced nuclear aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet – really not know that it was being showered with massive doses of radiation?” TEPCO, the company being sued by the sailors, answered that it’s “wholly implausible.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

September 20, 2021 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

February 14, 2023 — Caitlin N. Rabiyan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The California federal district court case of KB Home v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. 8:20-cv-00278-JLS-JDE, (C.D. Cal. August 23, 2022), provides much needed guidance for cases involving builder's risk insurance claims for soft cost coverage. The case stems from damage to several of KB Home’s residential building sites caused by a severe rainstorm in January 2017. Each home site was a smaller part of a large housing development project. The damage caused significant delay in the completion of some individual home sites, although there was limited evidence of delay to the overall housing development project. As a result, KB Home sought coverage under a builder’s risk policy purchased from Illinois Union for both hard costs and soft costs. “Hard costs” are the costs directly associated with repairing property damage to the sites. Conversely, “soft costs” are indirect expenses associated with project delays caused by such property damage and repair efforts. For example, hard costs would include labor and materials, whereas the soft costs claimed by KB Home included additional real estate taxes, construction loan interest, and advertising and promotional expenses incurred because of the delays. Illinois Union paid the claim for the hard costs, but denied the soft costs claim. KB Home filed suit and Illinois Union eventually filed a motion for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin N. Rabiyan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rabiyan may be contacted at CRabiyan@sdvlaw.com

---

Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

September 01, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
At a presentation before the AGC of Georgia, AHHC attorneys Mark Hanrahan, David Cook, and Chadd Reynolds covered “Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones.” View the presentation here: https://vimeo.com/177566370 On June 23, 2016, the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration issued new regulations regarding non-hobby and non-recreational civil operation of small unmanned aircraft systems. These regulations are intended to limit interference with federal airspace while advancing research and safety in commercial industries. They also addressed practical implications and how to comply by the August 29, 2016 deadline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

November 15, 2021 — Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Having your Contractor’s License up and running to perform work when needed, where needed, is an indispensable compliance matter that contractors face every year. However, this indispensable process may also be cumbersome and time consuming. Knowing the regulations applicable to your business in each state and what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, is of critical importance to maintain compliance and your ability to work in different states. In this post we will do a high-level review of reporting obligations in California and Louisiana. California’s Contractors’ State License Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., requires licensees to report various information to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “within 90 days” of the effective date or event. Louisiana State Licensing Laws and Regulations, R.S. §§ 37:24 et seq. and La. Admin. Code tit. 46, XXIX, §§ 101 et seq. also require similar reporting to the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors (LSLBC), sometimes “within 15 days” of the event. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rafael Boza, Pillsbury
Mr. Boza may be contacted at rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com

---