Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Miller Act Statute of Limitations and Equitable Tolling

July 11, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim, there is a one-year statute of limitations—“The Miller Act contains a statute of limitations provision that requires actions to ‘be brought no later than one year after the day on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the claim.’” U.S. f/u/b/o Techniquex Specialty Flooring, Inc., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2022 WL 169070, *3 (M.D.Penn. 2022) (citing the Miller Act). There is an argument, albeit a difficult one, to support an equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. This would be an argument filed when the one-year statute of limitations expires, but there is reason for missing the statute of limitations caused typically by the overt misleading of the defendant (surety/bond-principal):

“Equitable tolling functions to stop the statute of limitations from running where the claim’s accrual date has passed.” “Equitable tolling is appropriate in three situations: (1) when the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff respecting the facts which comprise the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) when the plaintiff in some extraordinary way has been prevented from asserting his rights; and (3) when the plaintiff has timely asserted his rights in the wrong forum.” The first ground for equitable tolling“appears to be the same, in all important respects” to equitable estoppel, which “excuses late filing where such tardiness results from active deception on the part of the defendant” and “what courts describe as ‘equitable tolling’ is encompassed by the latter two parts of our Circuit’s doctrine.” The extraordinary circumstances standard may be met “where the defendant misleads the plaintiff, allowing the statutory period to lapse; or when the plaintiff has no reasonable way of discovering the wrong perpetrated against her …” Tehniquex, supra, at *5 (internal citations omitted).

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

Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys

June 21, 2024 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The San Diego office has recently added two attorneys to the team. Amanda McKechnie has joined the Construction Law Practice Group. Amanda has extensive experience representing national developers, owners, general contractors, design professionals and subcontractors in complex construction litigation. Arash Yahyai has joined the Construction Law and General Liability Practice Groups. Arash focuses on defending actions involving complex construction defect, insurance defense, premises liability, product liability, catastrophic personal injury and other general liability related cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

August 26, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
As negotiations near a conclusion for a settlement with victims of last year’s fatal Florida International University bridge collapse, the role of the Louis Berger Group as peer review consultant is proving crucial. Attorneys for families of the six people who were killed and survivors say Berger is the last defendant that has not agreed to terms in lawsuits in state court in Miami against the companies that designed and built the bridge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

September 25, 2018 — Robert A. James & Alexandra Brandt - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Blog
It was already the case that in order to offer to install California residential solar energy systems, a contractor must be licensed by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) and must hold an appropriate specialty classification. Under AB 1070 enacted late last year (Chapter 662, Statutes of 2017), special consumer protections are being deployed for the benefit of homeowners. Those protections are steadily rolling out. Step one is the requirement of new Business & Professions Code (B&P Code) Section 7169 that, as of January 1, 2019, a disclosure document must be provided to consumers prior to sale and included on page 1 of the sale contract. The initial version of this document, which was developed by the CSLB and endorsed on August 23, 2018 by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), is available here. The disclosure requirement doesn’t apply to systems included in new home construction. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Alexandra Brandt, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Brandt may be contacted at alexandra.brandt@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

March 01, 2017 — Bruce Cleeland & Michael J. Worth - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2017 No. S233096, the California Supreme Court held that when a trial court determines an expert opinion is inadmissible because expert disclosure requirements were not met, the opinion must be excluded from consideration at summary judgment if an objection is raised. Plaintiff Mr. Perry sued defendants Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, alleging personal injuries after plaintiff fell at a property owned by Bakewell and leased by Chase. Defendant Chase served plaintiff with a demand for the exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff made no disclosure. Thereafter, the trial date was continued. Defendant Bakewell subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff submitted declarations of two experts opining that the stairs on which plaintiff fell were in disrepair and failed to comply with building codes and industry standards. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In depositions taken last week, the former owner of Rihanna’s “dream home” in Los Angeles, California, alleged “that he’d told brokers Prudential California Realty of the house’s issues,” according to Inquisitr. However, Rihanna, the singer and recent Grammy Award winner, claims that Prudential “didn’t inform” her “of these problems before she moved in, in 2009.” Rihanna has claimed that roof leaks “ruined a sound system that she’d had custom-fitted into her new abode, which cost her $6.9 million, and it also lead to mold growing on some of her designer garments too.” The singer claims to have been “tricked” into purchasing the property: “’the actual value of the property at the time of purchase, taking into consideration the extensive construction defects… was millions of dollars less’” than what she ultimately paid for it.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

September 21, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
On July 30, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) heard oral argument on the potential consolidation of all federal cases involving business interruption coverage relating to coronavirus and shut-down orders. A decision will be rendered in the near future. Meanwhile, many cases are on hold, waiting for a determination on consolidation. One such case is Pigment Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133230 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2020), where the court granted a stay pending a decision by the JPML. The case is a class action based on denial of coverage under business interruption insurance. Plaintiff's case alleged a bad faith denial that risked the permanent closure of its business due to unexpected temporary shutdowns from the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff sought a stay pending the decision of the JPML. The court considered the possible damage which could result from granting a stay, the hardship which a party could suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured by the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 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

Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

July 16, 2023 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES