Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

February 16, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
n my last post I discussed suing a local government for a substantive due process violation. In this post, I discuss a the right to procedural due process. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects prohibits the government from depriving an individual or business of life (in the case of an individual), liberty, or property without due process of law. Unlike the somewhat abstract and subjective concept of substantive due process, procedural due process is direct and objective. Generally, if an individual or business maintains a property or liberty interest, a local government must afford that individual or business notice that the government intends to deprive them of a liberty or property interest and a reasonable opportunity to be heard to contest the proposed deprivation. Unless there is an emergency, the notice and opportunity to be heard must be given before the government deprives an individual or business of a liberty of property interest. This is known as a pre-deprivation hearing. Because of the clear contours of the right, procedural due process violations are typically easier to prove than substantive due process violations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

New York Climate Mobilization Act Update: Reducing Carbon Emissions and Funding Solutions

August 30, 2021 — Caroline A. Harcourt - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Blog
In our June 16 CMA Update, we discussed how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) will affect building owners and the market for CMBS mortgage loans (loans pooled and resold as commercial mortgage-backed securities). (For more information on C-PACE financing, see Sustainable Buildings and Development: Carbon Emissions and the Recent Climate Mobilization Act of New York City.) In this update, we will outline some of the funding solutions that are available to New York City building owners looking to retrofit their buildings in order to comply with the CMA’s requirements. Funding Solutions for Covered Building Owners The cost of retrofitting buildings to incorporate energy efficient features and to achieve compliance with the CMA can be daunting. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury
Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com

Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

May 13, 2019 — Meredith Thielbahr - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
For those contractors in the government arena, read on. The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:

A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
the claim must be false or fraudulent;
the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.

See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com

Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

April 17, 2019 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
Given that about three-quarters of construction workers are exposed to noise levels above the recommended limit, 83 percent of the 237 contractors surveyed for a new Dodge Data & Analytics SmartMarket Brief say they’ve purchased quieter equipment, yet well over half of those firms report their company could do better. Additionally, 85 percent of contractors report using hearing protection onsite more than 50 percent of the time, yet less than half say they always use it, suggesting a significant opportunity for improvement in the industry. Digging deeper, the survey determined small companies lag behind large and midsize ones in the use of hearing protection. Also, half of general contractors report always using hearing protection, compared to about one-third of trade contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

July 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a construction lien is transferred to a lien transfer bond pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24, instead of foreclosing the lien against the real property, you are foreclosing the lien against the lien transfer bond. This is not a bad deal and, oftentimes, is probably ideal. Remember, however, just because a construction lien was transferred to a lien transfer bond (pre-lawsuit) does not mean you get more time to file your lien foreclosure lawsuit. A lawsuit must still be filed within one year (short of that period being specifically shortened under operation of the law). 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

New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

October 02, 2018 — Paul Briganti - White & Williams LLP
On August 18, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed a referee’s finding that “all sums” allocation was required under excess policies issued by Midland Insurance Company because they included a non-cumulation provision. See Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., Index No. 041294/1986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2018). Midland was a multi-line carrier that wrote a substantial amount of excess coverage for Fortune 500 companies. In the 1980s, Midland faced significant exposure for environmental, asbestos and product liability claims. In 1986, it was placed in liquidation and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance (the Liquidator) was appointed as its receiver. Since then, the New York Supreme Court has presided over the liquidation proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Partner Lisa M. Rolle and Associate Vito John Marzano Obtain Dismissal of Third-Party Indemnification Claims

December 22, 2019 — Lisa M. Rolle & Vito John Marzano - Traub Lieberman Perspectives
On June 1, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner Lisa M. Rolle and associate Vito John Marzano successfully secured dismissal of all third-party claims on behalf of a corporate entity and its principal in a third-party action in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Bronx. The underlying action concerned a trip and fall that occurred on a public sidewalk located in the Bronx. Plaintiff commenced suit against the corporation property owner and its principal. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs commenced the third-party action seeking contractual and common-law indemnification against three third-party defendants, the corporate tenant, another corporate entity that was not a party to the lease and its principal. Traub Lieberman represented the latter two third-party defendants. On behalf of the corporate entity that was not a party to the lease, Traub Lieberman moved for dismissal on the basis that the lease constitutes documentary evidence establishing as a matter of law that the non-tenant corporation cannot be held liable to third-party plaintiffs. On behalf of the principal, Traub Lieberman sought dismissal for failure to state a cause of action because the principal was shielded from liability by virtue of having incorporated his business, and the complaint did not allege a claim for piercing the corporate veil. In opposition, third-party plaintiffs sought to amplify their pleadings by alleging that a de facto merger had occurred between the non-tenant corporation and the tenant corporation. Third-party plaintiffs further argued that the corporate principal executed a guaranty to the lease, thus accepting liability on behalf of the tenant corporation. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Vito John Marzano, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Marzano may be contacted at vmarzano@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

July 13, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Tustin Field Gas & Food v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (No. B268850, filed 7/3/17), a California appeals court ruled that a split in an underground storage tank, caused by the tank sitting on a rock for years, was not a covered “collapse” as a matter of law. Tustin Field owned a gas station in Palm Springs. The installer of the underground storage tanks did not follow the manufacturer’s instructions to bury them in pea gravel or crushed rock. Instead, the installer just dug a hole, placed the tanks into that hole, and then covered them with “native soil” containing rocks, boulders and other debris. The tanks were double-walled, steel with a fiberglass sheath. Sixteen years after installation, testing revealed that the fiberglass sheath on one tank was no longer intact. The tank was excavated and the fiberglass sheath was found to be cracked from the tank sitting on a nine-inch boulder. The insured paid to have the crack repaired and made a claim for the cost of excavating and repairing the tank. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES