CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal

December 06, 2021 — Corinne Bertsche, Jeffry Miller & Tracy Forbath - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego, Calif. (October 28, 2021) - San Diego Appellate Practice Partners Jeffry A. Miller and Corinne C. Bertsche, along with Associate Tracy D. Forbath, recently obtained a win on appeal when California's Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Four affirmed the trial court’s grant of a client homeowners association’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying matter, the plaintiff alleged claims for premises liability and negligence for injuries he sustained when tripping over an uplift of two misaligned adjacent slabs of concrete sidewalk, measuring 1.25 inches and located next to a condominium complex. The appellate court agreed that the defect in question was a trivial defect as a matter of law, despite the plaintiff’s arguments that there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the uplift’s dangerousness was exacerbated by the presence of aggravating factors. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s expert declaration did not support the alleged aggravating factors with admissible evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it. Reprinted courtesy of Corinne Bertsche, Lewis Brisbois, Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois and Tracy Forbath, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bertsche may be contacted at Corinne.Bertsche@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

March 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Consider who you loan money too and, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which your loan agreements (promissory notes) are drafted. By way of example, in what appears to be a failed construction project in Conrad FLB Management, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2897a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a group of lenders lent money to a limited liability company (“Company”) in connection with the development of a project. Promissory notes were executed by Company and executed by its managing member as a representative of Company, and not in a personal capacity. Company, however, did not own the project. Rather, an affiliated entity owned the project (“Affiliated Entity”). Affiliated Entity had the same managing member as Company. Once the Company received the loan proceeds, it transferred the money to Affiliated Entity, presumably for purposes of the project. The loans were not repaid and the lenders sued Company, Affiliated Entity, and its managing member, in a personal capacity. The lenders claimed they were all jointly liable under the promissory notes. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, this was reversed on appeal as to the Affiliated Entity and the managing member because there was a factual issue as to whether they should be bound by the note executed on behalf of Company. First, Florida Statute s. 673.4011(1) provides that “a person is not liable on a promissory note unless either (a) the person signed the note, or (b) the person is represented by an agent who signed the note.” Conrad FLB Management, LLC, supra. Affiliated Entity is a separate entity and did not execute the note. 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

---

The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

January 07, 2025 — Kellie Ros - ConsensusDocs
The havoc material tariffs have caused the construction industry is nothing new. President-Elect Donald Trump imposed heavy tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first administration in 2016. While the tariffs themselves were not wholly unexpected, the ripple effect of those tariffs (coupled with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic) caused unexpected challenges for the construction industry. Those included allocating the risk of the additional costs caused by tariffs, supply and demand issues, grappling with escalation clauses, and navigating fixed price projects. The industry must now utilize the lessons learned from the rear-view mirror to strategically prepare for what was promised to be a second round of tariffs come January 2025. Tariffs’ Impacts on Material Prices Everywhere New or increased tariffs have the potential to raise prices for a wide range of construction inputs. Based on simple supply and demand principles, this includes inputs produced domestically that compete with foreign imports. For example, if a 20% tariff is imposed on Chinese steel, contractors may look to procure Brazil or U.S. steel in an effort to cut their costs. Such a rush to those less-costly alternatives may result in a supply shortage or an increase in prices in the marketplace across the globe. This occurred in 2016 when material prices indirectly related to the inputs on which the tariffs were imposed even increased. Contractors may be well served to get ahead of anticipated price increases and purchase materials now or take other actions in negotiating contracts to protect themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kellie Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Ros may be contacted at kros@pecklaw.com

---

Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

December 10, 2015 — Natalie Kirtroeff – Bloomberg
Navient, the country's largest student debt servicer, put out a report Wednesday that suggests young people are doing just fine with their finances. The study surveyed 3,000 millennials and concluded that they are happily taking out mortgages, starting families, saving money, and managing their budgets. "Young adults are not only financially healthy but also actively focused on saving," the report said. Navient may be overstating things. Here are four reasons you should not be convinced that things are going that well for young people who took out student loans. 1. Student Debt Seems to Dampen Homebuying People who finished college were more likely to have a mortgage than people who got only a high school education, the Navient study showed. Students who took out loans for college and didn't graduate, however, are worse off than those who never went at all. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Natalie Kirtroeff, Bloomberg

---

Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

May 12, 2016 — Dana Hull – Bloomberg
To Steve Yates, the best thing about his new Tesla Powerwall is that he doesn’t have to worry anymore about the lights going out during a storm. Or maybe it’s how cool an addition it is to the entryway of his house in Monkton, Vermont. “I’ve always wanted to have a backup power source,” said Yates, who was without electricity for 36 hours during Hurricane Irene in 2011. He also admires the Powerwall’s sleek white contours. “It’s kind of art-deco looking.” A year after Elon Musk unveiled the Powerwall at Tesla Motors Inc.’s design studio near Los Angeles, the first wave of residential installations has started in the U.S. The 6.4-kilowatt-hour unit stores electricity from home solar systems and provides backup in the case of a conventional outage. Weighing 214 pounds and standing about 4-feet tall, it retails for around $3,000. But hookup by a trained electrician is required, as is something called a bi-directional inverter that converts direct-current electricity into the kind used by dishwashers and refrigerators. The costs add up quickly -- which has fueled skepticism about Musk’s dream of changing the way the world uses energy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dana Hull, Bloomberg

---

California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

May 04, 2020 — Tara C. Dudum - Newmeyer Dillion
“We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent. To say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.” -Chief Justice and Chair of the California Judicial Council, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Seeking to sustain essential court services while balancing weighty considerations, including litigants’ due process rights, access to justice, and stringent health and safety orders, the California Judicial Council has adopted Emergency Rules in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). While many of the Emergency Rules focus on criminal and juvenile dependency matters, this update highlights the Emergency Rules immediately impacting civil litigation in California state courts. The following Emergency Rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency or the rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council: Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Civil Actions Effective April 6, 2020, the statutes of limitation (the time period in which to bring a claim) for all civil causes of action is tolled until such time as the rule is no longer in effect. The impact of this rule is that it provides plaintiffs with more time to bring claims and extends the time period that defendants may face legal action for alleged violations of the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tara C. Dudum, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Dudum may be contacted at tara.dudum@ndlf.com

---

Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision

September 02, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In NASDI, LLC v. Skanska Koch Inc. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. (JV), 2024 WL 1270188 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a subcontractor’s delay claim against a general contractor on a public project in New York state. The Court enforced a typical no-damages-for-delay provision to bar the subcontractor’s breach of contract claim. The no-damages-for-delay provision in the subcontract at issue provided:

NO DAMAGE FOR DELAY. Except as otherwise provided …, Subcontractor agrees that it shall have no Claim against Contractor for any loss or damage it may sustain through delay, disruption, suspension, stoppage, interference, interruption, compression, or acceleration of Subcontractor’s Work (‘Delay Damages’) caused or directed by Contractor for any reason, and that all such Claims shall be fully compensated for by Contractor’s granting Subcontractor such time extensions as it is entitled to as a result of any of the foregoing.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---