Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Crain’s Chicago Business, “as few as a fifth of elevators get the required annual checkup,” Chicago Inspector General Joe Ferguson claimed. Ferguson audited the roughly 5,100 buildings that city inspectors were assigned to inspect elevators, and found that only 965 were actually inspected, reported Crain’s Chicago Business. Furthermore, “when problems were found in inspections conducted by city personnel, they often were not fixed in a timely manner, again according to city records.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

June 25, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion in the property insurance coverage dispute, Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1232a (Fla. 4thDCA 2019), discusses the doctrine known as an insurer’s “confession of judgment.” In this case, an insured suffered water damage from a pipe leak. The insurer paid the insured $6,000 because of sublimits in the property insurance policy. There was a $5,000 sublimit for mold and a $1,000 sublimit for water leakage that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. The insured sued the insurer for covered water damage arguing that the sublimits did not apply. After the lawsuit was filed, an agreed order was entered that stayed the case pending an appraisal. The appraisal award did not apply the $1,000 sublimit to the water damage from the pipe leak and segregated out damage for mold. (The insurer already paid the mold sublimit). The insurer ended up paying the appraisal award for the water damage caused by the pipe leak after deducting its pre-lawsuit sublimit payment. The insurer paid the award and did NOT challenge the application of the $1,000 sublimit in court, although it could have since coverage issues are decided by courts. 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

Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

October 20, 2016 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
News that a non-union contractor had filed a Lawsuit against IBEW Local 98 and its leader, John Dougherty, made headlines this week. While making fodder for local media, the plaintiffs must bound several legal hurdles before IBEW Local 98 and “Johnny Doc” face any threat of liability. Background on RICO The lawsuit was filed under a set of laws known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). I have written about RICO’s impact on labor unions on this blog before and predicted that recent federal court cases made RICO claims against more viable. RICO is a Nixon era set of laws that were originally passed to combat organized crime. There is both a civil and criminal component to RICO. (Interestingly, the RICO act remained relatively dormant until then U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani began effectively using it to prosecute the mob in the 1980’s.) Although recent decisions have made RICO claims against unions more viable, any RICO claim is still challenging. Indeed, some courts require a plaintiff in civil RICO cases to file a separate RICO case statement detailing its allegations. RICO claims are powerful. Some have called RICO claims a “thermonuclear” litigation device because the law permits the award of trebel (triple) damages and attorneys fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

June 09, 2016 — Pam Hunter McFarland – Engineering News-Record
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 234-177 on June 8 to postpone implementation of the Obama administration’s more stringent 2015 ozone regulations by at least eight years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Hunter McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove

May 02, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
One of the most challenging claims to prove is a lost productivity or inefficiency claim. There is an alluring appeal to these claims because there are oftentimes intriguing facts and high damages. But the allure of the presentation of the claim does not compensate for the actual burden of proof in proving the lost productivity or inefficiency claim, which will require an expert. And they really are challenging to prove. Don’t take it from me. A recent Federal Claims Court opinion, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, (Fed.Cl. 2022), that I also discussed in the preceding article, exemplifies this point. To determine lost productivity or inefficiency, the claimant’s expert tried three different methodologies. First, the expert looked at industry standard lost productivity factors such as those promulgated by the Mechanical Contractor’s Association. However, the claimant was not a mechanical contractor and there is a bunch of subjectivity involved when using these factors. The expert decided not to use such industry standard factors correctly noting they provide value when you are looking at a potential impact prospectively, but once you incur actual damages and have real data, it is not an accurate measure. 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

Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects

December 10, 2024 — Robert A. James, Elina Teplinsky, Alicia M. McKnight, Sidney L. Fowler & Clarence H. Tolliver - Gravel2Gavel Blog
On October 3, 2024, the Department of Energy Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to fund up to $400 million for clean energy projects in rural and remote areas via its Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas program. The NOFO will provide awards ranging from $2 million – $50 million, with plans to fund 20 to 50 projects. Awards will require a non-federal cost share, range across four topic areas, and target projects in rural and remote communities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer. Eligibility Applications are open to a wide range of entities, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, state and local governmental entities, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, institutions of higher education, rural electric cooperatives, incorporated and unincorporated consortia, farming associations and cooperatives, and labor unions. Generally applicants must be U.S. entities, but foreign entities may be allowed to participate in limited circumstances. Applicants must identify at least one area in the U.S. or U.S. territories with a population of up to 10,000 people which will benefit from the proposal. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury, Elina Teplinsky, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury, Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Teplinsky may be contacted at elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

November 21, 2017 — Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Originally published by CDJ on August 30, 2017 On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

May 20, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute between the excess and primary carriers, the Fifth Circuit determined the primary policy was exhausted, triggering coverage under the excess policy. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Arch Spec. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6627 (5th Cir. April 21, 2015). Amerisure issued a CGL policy to Admiral Glass & Mirror Co. The policy provided excess over any coverage under a controlled insurance program policy. Arch issued an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) policy to Endeavor Highrise, LP and to its contrators and subcontractors for bodily injury and property damage arising out of the construction of the Endeavor Highrise. Admiral was a subcontractor insured under the OCIP. The OCIP had combined bodily injury and property damage limits of $2,000,000 per occurrence, a general aggregate limit of $2,000,000 and a products-completed operations aggregate limit of $2,000,000. The OCIP contained a Supplementary Payments provision which provided that Arch would pay "[a]ll expenses we incur" in connection with any covered claim, and that "[t]hese payments will not reduce the limits of insurance." Endorsement 16, however, expressly deleted and replaced this statement with: "[supplementary payments] will reduce the limits of insurance." The OCIP also provided that Arch's duty to defend ended "when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements." 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES