Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

September 28, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
If you are a regular reader of our blog, you will likely recognize that our firm has been actively involved and concerned with the results of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT”) Disparity Study, which impacts both Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and general contractors who bid on federally-funded projects with DBE goals. On June 1, 2017, WSDOT implemented a “waiver”, which excluded Caucasian women-owned firms (“WBEs”) from qualifying for Condition of Award DBE Goals on federally-funded projects. This drastic action was the result of WSDOT’s highly criticized 2012 Disparity Study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, Colorado, which concluded non-minority women-owned firms do not face “substantial disparities” in the federally-funded transportation contracting market. BBC’s study was criticized for a number of reasons, but most concerning was BBC’s flawed and unreliable statistical methodology that did not accurately represent true marketplace conditions. See Ahlers & Cressman letter of January 9, 2014 and Associated General Contractors of Washington article. For example, BBC’s results showed both decreasing WBE availability and availability vastly out of range with other states (e.g., the availability of women-owned construction firms in Washington was just 1.5% compared to 11.96% in Oregon). Nevertheless, based on this flawed BBC study and BBC’s assertion that women-owned firms did not face disparities, WSDOT sought and on June 1, 2017 was granted a waiver precluding general contractors from counting WBE firms towards their DBE goals on federally funded public works projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

May 18, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019). Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs. CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible. 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

Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

May 20, 2024 — David G. Jordan & William E. Phillips IV - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The "ensuing loss" clause is a provision that restores coverage for property insurance claims that are subject to certain policy exclusions, such as “faulty workmanship” and “faulty design.” It applies in cases where there is damage from a covered cause of loss that ensues, or results from, the excluded cause of loss. Courts across jurisdictions have grappled with interpreting the breadth of this clause, leading to varying conclusions regarding its scope and applicability. One of the primary challenges in interpreting “ensuing loss” lies in determining the ultimate cause of damage. Courts must ascertain whether the ensuing loss is sufficiently distinct from the excluded event to warrant coverage under the policy. This analysis often hinges on whether the cause of loss is thought to constitute a separate and independent occurrence or is merely a continuation or exacerbation of the excluded event. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and William E. Phillips IV, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Mr. Phillips may be contacted at WPhillips@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens

April 02, 2024 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
I was recently contacted by a commercial building owner in the process of trying to sell his building. Two years prior to this, a subcontractor had recorded a mechanics’ lien with the local County Recorder’s office in relation to the owner’s property. The subcontractor recorded the mechanics lien after the subcontractor was not paid by a prime contractor for work the subcontractor had performed on the property. Unfortunately, the subcontractor then failed to file a lawsuit to foreclose on the lien within the requisite ninety (90) day time period for filing a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanics’ lien. Since the subcontractor missed this 90 day deadline to file the mechanics lien foreclosure lawsuit, the mechanics lien expired and became unenforceable. Subject to certain exceptions, under California Civil Code Section 8460, a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics lien must be filed within ninety (90) days after the mechanics lien is recorded or the mechanics lien expires. Although the mechanics lien had expired, the title company and intended purchaser of the building and property were perhaps understandably insistent that the mechanics lien constituted a cloud on title to the property and must be removed from the official records for the property. The prospective purchaser would not buy the property unless the mechanics’ lien was removed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

The Rise Of The Improper P2P Tactic

September 18, 2023 — Tim Capowski - Kahana Feld
About a year ago a colleague brought my attention to the increase in irrelevant, inflammatory, scandalous, and improper language in plaintiff pleadings in catastrophic injury, fire, and death cases. Since that time, the problem has only intensified around the country. The purpose of this improper practice is multifaceted, and has nothing to do with properly or sufficiently pleading a lawsuit. Primarily, it is designed to create ready-made and targeted sensational content for news organizations to publish and re-publish (and for news bots to disseminate) to poison the future jury pool. The lay public interprets this content as imbued with credibility not only because it emanates from sworn or verified court filings but because it carries the further patina afforded by multiple news sources’ reliance on it. This method of pleading-to-press (hereinafter “P2P”) publicity attack carries far more weight than mere press conference allegations. Ironically, P2P is demonstrably wrong because a plaintiff counsel making the identical assertions at a press conference or via a press release during litigation would be subject to libel claims (litigation privilege does not attach), gag orders, and professional misconduct referrals in most jurisdictions. Just like the Reptile attacks are simply a repackaged variant of the long precluded “Golden Rule” tactic, the P2P attacks are nothing more than a very clever but highly improper way to circumvent the press conference publicity impropriety; the defense bar and judiciary simply haven’t caught up with it yet. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Capowski, Kahana Feld
Mr. Capowski may be contacted at tcapowski@kahanafeld.com

Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

October 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a major ruling, the California Supreme Court applied a statutory provision to overrule its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003) and ruled that liability policies can be assigned despite non-assignment provisions. See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5631 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015). The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Henkel when it also found anti-consent provisions valid. See Del Monte Fresh Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734 (2007) [see posts here and here]. For decades, Fluor Corporation performed engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) operations through various corporate entities and subsidiaries. Beginning in 1971, Hartford issued up to 11 CGL policies to Fluor from 1971 to 1986. Each policy contained a consent-to-assignment clause reading: "Assignment of interest under the policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon." Beginning in the mid-1980s, Fluor Corporation was sued in numerous lawsuits claiming personal injury from asbestos exposure. Fluor Corporation tendered the early lawsuits to Hartford, which accepted the defense. Fluor Corporation subsequently went through a reverse spinoff under which a newly formed subsidiary, Fluor 2, took over the continuation of the company's EPC businesses. The original Fluor transferred all of its EPC-related assets and liabilities to Fluor-2, making Fluor-2 the parent of the EPC subsidiaries. The transaction did not except any insurance rights from the transfer of "any and all" assets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Coordinated Youth and Human Services (CYHS), a family services organization hired Honey-Do Home Repair to design and install a new roof for its building in Granite City, Illinois. Honey-Do removed portions of the roof for testing. A few day later during a rainstorm, a tarp failed, leading to water intrusion and damage to the building. The CYHS is suing the contractor for $400,000. It is claiming that repairing the damage cost the organization $200,000, and it seeks additional damage and court costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Dispute Among Joint Venture Partners and Joint Venture Agreement

January 28, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a dispute involving joint venture partners and a joint venture agreement, one of the partners sued a third party (which purchased the assets of the other partner). Claims against the third party included tortious interference of the joint venture agreement between the partners, conspiracy to tortiously interfere with the joint venture agreement between the partners, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by the other partner, and conspiracy with the other partner to breach a fiduciary duty. The dispute was tried in a non-jury trial. The other partner and the third party prevailed. A few key points on the above claims asserted against the third party that failed:

Tortious interference of the contract -- Since the trial court found that the other partner did NOT breach the joint venture agreement, the cause of action for tortious interference failed. “No cause of action for tortious interference with a contract can exist in the absence of a breach.”
Conspiracy to tortiously interfere with a contract -- “If an underlying tort [e.g., tortious interference] has not been established, a count for conspiracy to commit that tort will not lie.”

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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES