Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

April 11, 2022 — Zachary Shelton - Lewis Brisbois
(April 4, 2022) - Beginning July 1, 2022, Illinois trial courts will begin imposing new time standards for closing out pending cases. This change follows the Illinois Supreme Court’s March 25, 2022 announcement setting new time standards for case closure in trial courts. This announcement will apply to all cases filed in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2022. According to the recent announcement, the purpose of the new Time Standards Order (the Order) is to assist Illinois circuit courts with “meeting their fundamental obligation to resolve disputes fully, fairly, and promptly” by establishing a uniform, statewide expectation for parties, attorneys, and judges regarding the status of cases that will require each court to evaluate its actual performance compared to a statewide expectation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Shelton, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Shelton may be contacted at Zachary.Shelton@lewisbrisbois.com

NCDOT Aims to Reopen Helene-damaged Interstate 40 by New Year's Day

December 10, 2024 — Derek Lacey - Engineering News-Record
Interstate 40, closed in late September when flooding from Hurricane Helene caused multiple landslides and washouts in the Pigeon River Gorge between North Carolina and Tennessee, is expected to partially reopen on New Year’s Day 2025, more than three months after the storm. Long-term reconstruction plans are still in early development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, ENR
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com

Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

June 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
An interesting construction case just came out from the California Court of Appeals for the Second District this past month – Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B248320 (May 19, 2015) – which discusses a number of intertwining issues that can be faced by contractors in California and concludes with a result that I’m not sure I quite agree with. Among the issues discussed by the Court of Appeal were:

The application of the dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031 which: (1) precludes a contractor from making a claim for payment for work performed; and (2) requires a contractor to disgorge all monies received for work performed, if the contractor was not properly licensed at all times that work was performed;
The impact of an unsatisfied judgment against one contractor on the license of another “related” contractor; and
Whether a stipulated judgment providing for payments over time is an unsatisfied final judgment under the Licensing Law.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

July 21, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Answering a question posed by the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court found that a suit against a employer for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of a employee who intentionally injures a third party alleges an occurrence under a CGL policy. Liberty Surplus Co. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 4063 (Cal. June 4, 2018) Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company (L&M) contracted with the school district to manage a construction project at a middle school. L&M hired Darold Hecht as an assistant superintendent on the project. In 2010, Jane Doe, a 13-year-old student at the school, sued alleging that Hecht had sexually abused her. Doe’s claims included a cause of action against L&M for negligent hiring, retaining, and supervising Hecht. 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

Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

February 06, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for business losses due to COVID-19 was granted in part, denied in part. SRL v Zurich Am. Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210058 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). Excelsior owned and managed the Westin Excelsior Rome, a luxury hotel in Rome. The hotel suffered business income losses with the onset of the pandemic.While the hotel was not forced to close, its bookings decreased to virtually nothing. The Excelsior's complaint alleged that the COVID-19 virus was present in and around the hotel as multiple guests and at least six employees tested positive for COVID-19. It further alleged that the virus attached to interior property and was in the air. Excelsior was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Zurich. The court agreed there was no direct physical loss because no structure suffered damage. Among the coverages under the policy, however, was a "Cancellation of Bookings" provision. Zurich agreed there was coverage under this provision, but argued that Excelsior had already reached its annual limit for Cancellation of Bookings claims. 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

Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

September 15, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (No. B260833, filed 7/25/16, ord. pub. 8/15/16) a California appeals court affirmed a $3 million bad faith award against Mercury Casualty Co. based upon its failure to accept a policy limit demand within the time provided, finding that wording inserted by the claimants’ counsel into the release did not affect the insured’s rights such that the refusal to agree to the wording was unreasonable and in bad faith, exposing the insurer to liability for the insured’s stipulated judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

March 06, 2022 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law. A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage” In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:

“This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

June 06, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Apparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?

Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.

If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.

But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES