CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

January 29, 2024 — Wendy Rosenstein - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The recent unpublished case, Cascade Civil Construction, LLC v. Jackson Dean Construction, Inc., et al.,[1] provides a legal justification for contractors to require a directive or change order in advance of performing changed work—thereby preventing the party who requested the changed work from later arguing that notice provisions were not complied with. In the case, Jackson Dean, the prime contractor, hired Cascade to perform excavation work on a project to build a new Costco Corporate headquarters. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues, Jackson Dean directed resequencing, which required Cascade to perform excavation concurrent to dewatering. Jackson Dean also required deeper-than-planned excavation under one of the buildings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wendy Rosenstein, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Rosenstein may be contacted at wendy.rosenstein@acslawyers.com

---

Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

January 07, 2015 — David M. McClain – Colorado Construction Litigation
During the summer of 2011, Ellis Construction hired Cool Sunshine Heating & Air Conditioning to install the HVAC systems in a single-family home it was building for Gary Doberman and Ellen Robertson in Boulder, Colorado. The homeowners took issue with much of the work performed on their home and tried to negotiate directly with Ellis Construction. When those negotiations broke down, the homeowners sent a notice of claim pursuant to the Construction Defect Action Reform Act, C.R.S. § 13-20-801, et seq. One of the defects alleged in the notice of claim was that the SEERS 13 compressor installed by Cool Sunshine was inappropriate for the system and that because it was installed to run on only one stage, it did not meet the City of Boulder’s code requirements for noise levels. The homeowners therefore requested that the compressor be replaced with a SEERS 20 compressor, which would comply with the Boulder City Code. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

May 12, 2016 — Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

October 19, 2017 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
On the 32nd anniversary of the magnitude-8.1 earthquake that devastated Mexico City on Sept. 19, 1985, 41 U.S. seismic experts were in a workshop near Los Angeles, polishing a new tool to identify “killer” buildings: non-ductile concrete structures that often perform poorly in quakes. Suddenly, the attendees started getting pager alerts from the U.S. Geological Survey: A magnitude-7.1 quake had struck about 120 kilometers from Mexico City. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

---

Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Construction defect claims are now occurrences for insurance purposes in four states, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, and South Carolina, yet there are still frustrations for commercial general liability policyholders. Business Insurance describes court decisions on whether construction defect claims are covered as “incongruous,” and this drives up coverage and litigation costs. Construction firms often find they are defending themselves on two fronts, both the construction defect claim and also whether their insurance covers it.

Frank Armstrong, the Senior Vice President and National Director of Construction Claims for Willis North America says that the problem starts with the word “occurrence,” as various state courts have different interpretations of the word. “Certain pieces of it don’t fit well, at lest according to some courts in the country, with coverage for construction defect risks.”

Another insurance executive, Julian Ehlich, the Senior Vice President of Claims for Aon Risk Solutions’ construction services group notes that “jurisdictions differ, so policyholders don’t know what they’re going to get.”

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

February 01, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems. As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Earth Movement Exclusion Precludes Coverage

July 20, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, found the earth movement exclusion barred coverage for the contractor when a landslide damaged the property. North River Ins. Co. v. H.K. Constr. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90110 (D. Haw. May 22, 2020). Bruce and Yulin Bingle sued HK for damage caused to the Bingle property. HK was hired as the contractor for the construction of a new residence and improvements on their property in Kaneohe. HK excavated near the boundary of the neighbors' and the Bingle's property in order to cut the existing slope to build a retaining wall. Due to the excavation work, the slope on the Bingle property failed and soil eroded away. At the time, the Bingles were selling their property. Due to the landslide, the buyer decided not to buy the property. The Department of Planning and Permitting issued a Notice of Violation for failure to obtain a grading permit. HK notified its carrier, North River. North River agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, but then filed suit against HK for a declaratory judgment. 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

---

A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

October 16, 2018 — George Talarico - Construction Executive
Part I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance. REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:

• include a request for a modification of contract time; and
• exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.

Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so. Reprinted courtesy of George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Talarico may be contacted at gtalarico@sillscummis.com

---