Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

July 31, 2024 — Erica Whaley - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this year, the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract. The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robinson + Cole

Best Lawyers Honors 43 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Three Partners as 'Lawyers of The Year'

September 14, 2020 — Lewis Brisbois
Best Lawyers has selected 43 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 25 offices for inclusion in its list of 2021 Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized three Lewis Brisbois partners as "Lawyers of the Year": Los Angeles Partner Jon P. Kardassakis (Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants); Roanoke Partner Paul C. Kuhnel (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); and Northwest Indiana Managing Partner Renee J. Mortimer (Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating these three partners and the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Navigating Casualty Challenges and Opportunities

October 07, 2024 — Kyle Sternadori - The Hartford
US casualty has arguably been the hottest topic in the sector over the last year amid growing concerns over deteriorating loss trends. E&S Insurer talks to Kyle Sternadori, head of wholesale excess casualty at Navigators, a brand of The Hartford. Featured in the July 2024 edition of E&S Insurer. How are you approaching current E&S excess casualty market dynamics? We are focusing on loss trends, such as rising loss costs, and staying ahead of those trends. As an excess market there are ways to do that: managing capacity and limits deployment across the portfolio; working internally amongst claims, actuarial, data science to stay ahead of that; and using your own data. Staying ahead of the curve is essentially what we're trying to do. It started for us probably even before the market hardened. You saw towers of coverage that used to be maybe three markets and nowadays it could be 10 to 15 markets for similar coverage, with each market minimizing its downside. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Sternadori, The Hartford

Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.

The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.

The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.

In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.

The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.

A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”

Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

March 27, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An interesting opinion on a motion to dismiss came out of the United States Court of Federal Claims dealing with the claim that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in administering the prime contract. The contractor’s argument was that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying the contractor’s claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). This was a creative claim and argument that deserves consideration because it tied in the contracting officer’s denial of the CDA claim for additional money with a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this case, Aries Construction Corp. v. U.S., 2023 WL 2146598 (Fed. Cl. 2023), a prime contractor was hired for a water pipeline construction project. The contractor encountered unexpected difficult site conditions that required additional equipment and labor. The contractor informed the contracting officer and alleged it was instructed to proceed with the additional equipment and labor. The contractor submitted a claim under the CDA but the contracting officer denied the claim. The contractor pursued the claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims arguing the government breached the contract and, of interest, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. The government moved to dismiss the breach of good faith and fair dealing claim arguing that besides failing to state a cause of action the Court of Federal Claims had no jurisdiction because the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing was not properly presented to the contracting officer under the CDA. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion. 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

2022 California Construction Law Update

December 27, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been a trying year as we approach the end of 2021. From the pandemic approaching nearly two years to concerns regarding climate change to the impact of inflation on everything from the cost of groceries to housing affordability. During the first half of the 2021-2022 legislative session, a total of 2,421 bills were introduced in 2021 of which 836 made it to the Governor’s desk and 770 were signed into law. This is up from the 2,223 bills introduced in 2020 of which 428 bills made it to the Governor’s desk and 372 were signed into law, due in large part, to the fact that legislators were not required to shelter-in-place as they were in 2020. Not surprisingly, for the construction industry, many of the bills were focused on the hot topics of the year including housing affordability and climate change. However, there were also the typical changes to project delivery methods and a few changes to the Licensing Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

December 07, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Recently, the California Bar Association (“CBA”) published Formal Opinion No. 2020-203[1] concerning a lawyer’s ethical obligations with respect to unauthorized access to electronically stored client information. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the growing trend of storing and maintaining data and information online so that employees and clients can access the data from anywhere in the world at any time. Now, in today’s working world, the reality is nearly all information and data is stored and shared digitally online for ease of access, use, and dissemination. Unfortunately, a major draw-back of this switch to a cyber paradigm is serious exposure to data breaches as a result of hacking, inadvertence, or theft. Formal Opinion No. 2020-203 outlines how a lawyer is to handle access to client confidential information and anticipation of potential security issues. This article will briefly cover the key aspects addressed in Formal Opinion No. 2020-203. What is the duty owed by a lawyer to his or her client regarding the use of technology? At the outset, the CBA reminds lawyers of the ongoing duty of competence (Rule 1.1) and the duty to safeguard clients’ confidences and secrets (Rule 1.6; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)) which impose the requirement that a lawyer must have a basic understanding of the risks posed when using a given technology and (if necessary) obtain help from appropriate experts to assess those risks and take reasonable steps to prevent data breaches. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Mortgage Firms Face Foreclosure Ban Until 2022 Under CFPB Plan

April 05, 2021 — Alex Wittenberg - Bloomberg
Millions of homeowners who’ve fallen behind on mortgage payments due to the pandemic would have more time before facing foreclosure under rules proposed Monday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The revamp would generally prohibit mortgage servicers from starting foreclosures until after Dec. 31, the CFPB said in a statement. The goal is to give the nearly 3 million borrowers who’ve delayed or stopped making payments a chance to resume them before lenders initiate forced home sales. A key reason why the CFPB said the change is necessary is because an estimated 1.7 million consumers will exit U.S. forbearance relief programs in September and the ensuing months, meaning they will have to start making payments again. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alex Wittenberg, Bloomberg

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES