Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Lockport, New York, “more than two dozen tenants have been locked out of their apartment building…but they have yet to find out why,” according to WIVB news. Brian Belson, Lockport’s building inspector, condemned the building and ordered the tenants to leave, providing only 15 minutes advanced warning. Once all of the tenants were out, the first floor windows and doors were boarded up. At first, tenants were told that they would be able to return in a few days, but now they are being told it could be weeks. However, WIVB News reported that Brian Belson has not returned any of their phone calls, so they have “filed a Freedom of Information request at Town Hall, seeking that information.” Belson has five days to respond to the request. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Killer Subcontract Provisions

January 20, 2020 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
We are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:

PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai in his California Law Blog declared that “things just got a lot tougher for contractors and material suppliers in the Golden State.” In his blog, Murai analyzed the recent case Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Eastern Municipal Water District, Case No. E054618 (July 23, 2014), in which “the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District found that a subcontractor’s public works payment bond claim was time barred because its stop payment notice was served ‘before’ a notice of completion was recorded.” Murai explained the importance of the ruling and how it changed the status quo: “Whereas before, it was commonly understood that you could serve a stop payment notice ‘during’ construction (after all, that was the point wasn’t it, to stop construction funds before they are paid out), now you may have only have a 30 day window (probably less) to serve a stop notice within 30 days after a notice of completion or notice of cessation is recorded.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

October 21, 2024 — Michael Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Similar to the changes made by the Washington Legislature last year, the Oregon Legislature recently changed its retention law. Oregon public works agencies and large commercial project owners are now required to accept surety bonds in lieu of withholding retainage on construction projects. There is also no longer a requirement to deposit retention funds in an interest-bearing escrow account. The owner or public agency must accept the bond in lieu of retainage unless specific grounds exist. For example, public agencies must find there is “good cause” for rejection of the bond based on the “unique project circumstances. Private owners have less discretion to reject a bond and if the bond meets the statutory requirements, per ORS 701.435(1)(a) “the owner and lender shall accept” the bond “in lieu of all or any portion of the retainage…” Courts have not analyzed when “good cause” exists for public agencies to reject bonds or exactly what will allow a private owner to reject a bond. However, an agency or owner cannot have a general policy to reject retention bonds. The statute does not provide next steps if the contractor disagrees with a decision to reject the bond. It may be necessary to proceed under the contract’s dispute resolution procedure or it may be more appropriate to take the issue directly to the courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

General Contractors Can Be Sued by a Subcontractor’s Injured Employee

November 05, 2014 — Craig Martin - Construction Contractor Advisor
General contractors that exercise control over the worksite can be sued by a subcontractor’s injured employee. The Nebraska Supreme Court’s recent opinion, Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, should serve as a reminder that general contractors may be responsible for the safety of all workers on a job site. In this case, a roofing subcontractor’s employee died after falling through the roof of the under-construction Wal-Mart. The deceased employee’s estate sued Wal-Mart and Gram Construction, the general contractor, alleging that they were negligent in maintaining a safe worksite. The court initially acknowledged that an owner, the employer of an independent contractor, does not typically owe a subcontractor’s employee a duty because the owner typically has no control over the manner in which the work is to be done by the contractor. This general rule, however, has exceptions, such as where the owner retains control over the contractor’s work. But, for the exception to apply, the owner must have (1) supervised the work that caused the injury, (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the danger that caused the injury, and (3) the opportunity to prevent the injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

October 30, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I’m back after a welcome change of offices from a Regus location to a separate and more customer-friendly local shared office space location. I thought I’d jump back into posting with a series of construction contract-related posts, the first of which relates to indemnification clauses. An indemnification clause in a contract obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to take on liability (read pay for) any damages to another party (the Indemnitee) under certain circumstances. In a construction context, this type of arrangement can arise in a bonding context with a general indemnity obligation to the surety among other contexts outside of the four corners of any prime or subcontract. I will not be discussing those other contexts and will focus on the typical indemnity clause found in most if not all, construction contracts. These clauses most often state that the “downstream” party is to indemnify all of the upstream parties for any and all damages incurred by the indemnitees due to any action of the downstream party, its employees, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, etc. The clauses are often not limited in scope and generally include attorney fee provisions and generally require indemnity for breaches of contract by their terms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

2023 Construction Law Update

January 04, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As we approach 2023 we want to wish you and yours a happy holiday season. A total of 1,726 bills were introduced during the second half of the 2021-2022 legislative session of which 997 were signed into law. This compares with the 2,421 bills introduced during the first half of the 2021-2022 of which 770 were signed into law. Among the legislation taking effect in 2023 are new laws applying to contractors include new workers’ compensation laws (even if you don’t have employees), a continuation of a record number of new housing affordability laws as well as environmental laws aimed at climate change, and, of course, as we see nearly every year, new procurement authorizations. Licensing AB 1747 – Authorizes the Contractors State License Board to issue penalties of up to $30,000 for the willful or deliberate disregard of state or local laws relating to the issuance of building permits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Henkels & McCoy Pays $1M in Federal Overtime-Pay Case

July 19, 2021 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
In a consent judgment in a federal labor case, major specialty contractor Henkels & McCoy Inc. has paid about $1.1 million in back pay and damages for allegedly not paying required overtime wages to 362 current and former workers in five states, the U.S. Dept. of Labor says. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES