CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The number of building permits for houses issued throughout the country hasn’t been higher since June 2008, a sign that the home building industry continues to recover, even in the face of higher interest rates. “These reports are unequivocally in line with our view that the housing recovery remains will on track, as the lack of supply will continue to support both construction activity and house prices,” according to Harm Bandholz, the chief U.S. economist for UniCredit Research. Building permits were up 13.9% over last year and beat projections of 930,000 permits on an annual rate. The current annual rate for building permits is 1.03 million. Permits for multifamily homes were up 20.1% in September and 15.3% in October. Single-family homes were up 0.8% in October, but had fallen 1.9% the month before. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

June 21, 2017 — Jesse Witt - The Witt Law Firm
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that developers can retain control over community covenants in perpetuity by recording a covenant that requires declarant consent to any amendments. Although the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) states that such controls should be void, the court nevertheless ruled that a declarant may veto amendments that alter the dispute resolution procedures for construction defect actions at any time. The case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 15CO508, arose when the community’s members discovered widespread construction defects. When the declarant developed the project, it had recorded a declaration of covenants that purported to waive the homeowners’ right to a jury trial and instead require that any construction defect disputes be resolved by a private arbitration panel. The declaration also prohibited the homeowners from recovering attorney fees and costs, and it limited the declarant’s liability for damages. Consistent with CCIOA, the declaration allowed the homeowners to amend their covenants by a 67% vote, but it recited that the declarant could veto any such amendment prior to the sale of the last unit to a homeowner. The covenants further stated that the declarant must consent to any amendment that altered the construction defect restrictions. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

January 10, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLC
The strategy to avoid union salts is rather simple. But, simplicity does not mean easy. The process requires discipline. A salt is a paid union organizer that attempts to gain employment with a non-union employer for the purpose of either (a) organizing the employers workforce or (b) bringing a costly unfair labor practice charge for discriminatory hiring practices. A “covert salt” is someone who conceals his union affiliation in order to gain employment with a non-union employer for the purpose of starting a union organizing campaign. Actually, conceal is an understatement. Covert salts actively lie to gain employment with a non-union employer. Covert salts apply for jobs under false names, social security numbers, and use bogus resumes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

January 26, 2017 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
On October 20, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc.[1] decision. The Sopris decision significantly altered the potential pitfalls awaiting a general contractor in pursuit of third-party claims as well as potential defenses available for a subcontractor defending against third-party claims. By way of background, the Sopris construction defect case arose out of the following facts: TDC was the general contractor for the construction of a hotel owned by Sopris Lodging. On March 11, 2011, Sopris Lodging sent TDC a notice of claim regarding alleged construction defects. On May 24, 2013, Sopris Lodging filed a complaint in district court asserting construction defect claims against one of the subcontractors of the hotel, and against the general contractor’s principals, but not the general contractor. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit, Sopris Lodging and TDC entered into an agreement to toll the statute of limitations on Sopris Lodging’s potential claims against TDC. In August 2013, Sopris Lodging joined the general contractor to the suit. A year later, in 2014, the general contractor joined a variety of subcontractors as third-party defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Jean may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

---

California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

July 03, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
Walnut Creek, Calif. (May 25, 2022) - In Gonzalez v. Mathis (August 19, 2021) 12 Cal. 5th 29, the California Supreme Court considered whether to create a third exception to the Privette Doctrine specific to known hazards on a worksite, when a contractor cannot remedy the hazard by taking reasonable safety precautions to protect against it. Privette Background Under the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor generally cannot be liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its employees while on the job. This is due to the “strong presumption” that the hirer delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the independent contractor. See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689. Since the Privette ruling in 1993, the California Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which the presumption may be overcome. First, the hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 213. Second, a landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard to the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664. Here, in the Gonzalez case, the court considered whether a landowner could be liable for known hazards on the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “You May Want an Intervention …”

June 10, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
You may want an intervention … but you are not getting one! So said a federal court in New Orleans to a masonry supplier seeking to intervene in in an upstream subcontractor’s lawsuit against a payment bond surety for allegedly unpaid subcontract sums. It all seems so obvious: the masonry supplier indicates it is unpaid, and the subcontractor to which it supplied materials is saying the same thing and pursuing monies from the general contractor’s surety. Eventually, if the subcontractor prevails against the surety, monies ought to flow to the supplier – a set of facts lending itself to an intervention. The federal district court disagreed, however. Referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and prior United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case law the topic, the court opined that the masonry supplier lacked an interest in the subcontractor’s potential recovery that was “related to the property or transaction that forms the basis of the controversy…an interest that is ‘direct, substantial, [and] legally protectable.’" Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

September 26, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (August 12, 2022) - New York Appellate Partner Nicholas P. Hurzeler, with New York Partners John J. Doody and David M. Pollack, obtained a significant appellate victory on behalf of a national home improvement chain when a New York Appellate Division panel for the Second Department reduced a jury verdict by more than half. In this matter, which was covered by Law360, the plaintiff was a customer at one of the chain's stores when he was involved in a confrontation with a man and his wife as they exited the store. The chain's loss prevention official told police that the plaintiff had assaulted the female customer. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff was arrested, spent the night in jail, and was arraigned at the same courthouse where he worked as a staff attorney while wearing only an undershirt and jogging shorts. He also had to disclose his arrest on his judgeship nomination application. The charges against him were ultimately dropped after the chain's loss prevention official told prosecutors that surveillance video showed that the female customer’s assault claims were false. The plaintiff subsequently sued the home improvement chain and its loss prevention official for allegedly causing his false arrest and interfering with his career goal of securing a New York state court judgeship. At the close of the trial in this case, the jury determined that the defendant was liable for battery and false imprisonment, and awarded the plaintiff $1.8 million for pain and suffering. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

January 11, 2021 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Auburn Woods HOA v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.5th 717 (October 28,2020) (certified for partial publication), the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith brought by Auburn Woods Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and property manager, Frei Real Estate Services (“FRES”) against State Farm and the HOA’s broker, Frank Lewis. The parties’ dispute arose out of the tender of two different lawsuits filed against the HOA and FRES by Marva Beadle (“Beadle”). The first lawsuit was filed by Beadle as the owner of a condominium unit against the HOA and FRES for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an accounting related to amounts allegedly owed by Beadle to the HOA as association fees. The second lawsuit filed by Beadle was for the purpose of setting aside a foreclosure sale, cancelling the trustee’s deed and quieting title, and for an accounting and injunctive relief against an unlawful detainer action filed by Sutter Group, LP against Beadle. The complaint filed in the second lawsuit alleged that Allied Trustee Services caused Beadle’s property to be sold at auction and that Sutter Capital Group, LP purchased the unit and obtained a trustee’s deed upon sale. Beadle claimed the assessments against her were improper and the trustee’s deed upon sale was wrongfully executed. Beadle sought an order restoring possession of her unit and damages. The HOA and FRES tendered both lawsuits to State Farm. As respects the first lawsuit, State Farm denied coverage of the lawsuit based on the absence of alleged “damages” covered by the policy issued to the HOA affording liability and directors and officers (“D&O”) coverages. State Farm agreed to defend the HOA under the D&O coverage in the second lawsuit. However, State Farm denied coverage of FRES in both lawsuits as it did not qualify as an insured under the State Farm policy issued to the HOA. Subsequently, the HOA and FRES filed an action against State Farm arguing that a duty to defend was triggered under its policy for the first lawsuit and a duty to defend FRES was also owed under the D&O policy for the second lawsuit. After a bench trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm based on the failure of the first lawsuit to allege damages covered by the State Farm policy under the liability and D&O coverages afforded by the policy. As respects the second lawsuit, the trial court held that FRES did not qualify as an insured and State Farm did not act in bad faith by refusing to pay the HOA’s alleged defense costs in the second lawsuit before it agreed to defend the HOA against such lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

---