Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final

March 29, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In subcontracts, it is not uncommon to see a provision that says something to the effect: Should any dispute arise between the parties respecting the true construction or interpretation of the Plans, Specifications and/or the Contract Requirements, the decision of the Owner or the Owner’s designated representative as set forth in the General Contract shall be final. This is a provision in a subcontract dealing with dispute resolution, typically when there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is performing extra-contractual or base contract work regarding an “interpretation of the Plans, Specifications, and/or the Contract Requirements.” It is not uncommon for there to be a dispute as to whether certain work is within the subcontractor’s scope of work or outside the subcontractor’s scope of work and subject to a change order. 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

Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

November 11, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Suffolk Construction lost a breach-of-contract contract lawsuit in July with a former drywall subcontractor's surety—but the contractor's payout may dramatically increase if the presiding U.S. district court judge in Miami allows the surety to collect $3 million more in requested attorneys' fees and trial costs. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013). The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete. Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

January 13, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Connecticut courts have been inundated with collapse cases the past couple of years due to insureds' living in homes that were constructed with defective concrete manufactured by J.J. Mottes Concrete Company. In a duo of cases, the Connecticut Supreme Court responded to a certified question from the U.S. District Court, holding that collapse required that the building be in imminent danger of falling down. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2019 Conn. LEXIS 339 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019). Plaintiffs had resided in their home since 2009. The home was built in 1993. In August 2015, after learning about the problem of crumbling basement walls affecting homes in their community due to cement manufactured by Mottes, they retained a structural engineer to evaluate their basement walls. The engineer found spider web cracking approximately 1/16 of an inch wide in the basement walls and three small vertical cracks. There were no visible signs of bowing. The engineer did not find that the walls were in imminent danger of falling down, but recommended that the basement walls be replaced. Plaintiffs submitted a claim under their homeowners policy to Liberty Mutual. The claim was denied. The policy did not define collapse, but stated that collapse did not include "settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion." 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

Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

November 13, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. 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

University of Tennessee Commits to $1.9B Capital Plan

August 07, 2023 — Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
A nearly $2-billion funding plan approved by University of Tennessee trustees signals the go-ahead for 15 new capital projects at five locations including research, science and housing facilities along with a planned entertainment district for Neyland Stadium, home of the university's football team. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Resolve to Say “No” This Year

January 26, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We hear all of the time how to “get to ‘yes'” and how doing so can lead to more business and of course more business leads to more profits. Purely logical, right? Without construction owners with work for general contractors to perform and general contractors hiring subcontractors to perform that work, construction grinds to a halt and clients and friends of mine in the construction industry don’t make money. For this to happen, “yes” has to happen more often than not. So, why the title of this post? Chalk it up to spending much if not all of my time as a construction attorney either anticipating or dealing with the Murphy’s Law ruled nature of the construction world or to the “Monday morning quarterback” nature of my profession, but I see numerous instances where not taking the job or signing the bad contract would have led to a better outcome than performing the work. What do I mean by this? I mean that as a construction company (particularly one that is lower down the “payment chain” and therefore less in control of the flow of money), you need to carefully evaluate not only the contract presented, but whether you get a good feeling about the party with whom you are contracting. 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

The Privacy Shield Is Gone: How Do I Now Move Data from the EU to the US

February 08, 2021 — Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
Following the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) in case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems (known as “Schrems II”), companies in the United States can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield, the framework developed by the US Department of Commerce, and the European Commission and Swiss Administration to promote transatlantic commerce while protecting personal data. Schrems II Invalidated the Privacy Shield and Creates Uncertainty Schrems II concluded that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework is no longer a valid mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the EU to the United States. Further, in a subsequent decision, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner concluded that the data protection of the Privacy Shield does not provide an adequate level of protection for data transfer from Switzerland to the US pursuant to their Federal Act on Data Protection. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES