Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

August 10, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an owner receives a construction lien, an owner should serve the lienor with a Request for Sworn Statement of Account. The Request for Sworn Statement is authorized by Florida Statute s. 713.16(2) and should be in the following form: REQUEST FOR SWORN STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WARNING: YOUR FAILURE TO FURNISH THE REQUESTED STATEMENT, SIGNED UNDER OATH, WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE FURNISHING OF A FALSE STATEMENT WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF YOUR LIEN. To: (Lienor’s name and address) The undersigned hereby demands a written statement under oath of his or her account showing the nature of the labor or services performed and to be performed, if any, the materials furnished, the materials to be furnished, if known, the amount paid on account to date, the amount due, and the amount to become due, if known, as of the date of the statement for the improvement of real property identified as (property description) . (name of contractor) (name of the lienor’s customer, as set forth in the lienor’s Notice to Owner, if such notice has been served) (signature and address of owner) (date of request for sworn statement of account) From both an owner and lienor’s perspective, the bolded, capitalized language is key. It states that if the lienor fails to respond under oath within 30 days, it will LOSE its lien. That is a very punitive measure for a lienor’s failure to respond, meaning a lienor should absolutely respond, no questions asked. Plus, a lienor’s response to a Request for Sworn Statement of Account is not a burdensome ordeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

April 20, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insured's motion to compel documents withheld for privilege by the insurers. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Amtrack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27041(E.D. N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016). Plaintiffs were insurers who did business in the London Insurance Market and who issued one or more liability policies issued to Amtrak. Amtrak demanded coverage under the policies for alleged environmental contamination and/or asbestos exposure. Coverage was denied and the insurers filed for a declaratory judgment. 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

Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

September 20, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Arizona, a party successfully quieting title to property may recover its attorneys’ fees if it satisfies three requirements: (1) the party requests a quitclaim deed from the party adversely claiming title twenty days before bringing the quiet-title action; (2) the party tenders five dollars for the execution and delivery of the deed; and (3) the adverse party fails to comply. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1103(B). Recently, in McCleary v. Tripodi, No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0145, 2017 WL 3723472 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals awarded attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under this statute. In McCleary v. Tripodi, Mrs. Tripodi, who became the administrator of her husband’s estate upon his death, wrongfully recorded three deeds purporting to transfer property to herself. After unsuccessfully attempting to get Mrs. Tripodi to quitclaim the property, the plaintiffs filed a quiet-title action. The trial court agreed that the plaintiffs were the legal and rightful owners, granted summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, and awarded attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer

Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

November 04, 2019 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Francis Manchisi of Wilson Elser discussed how several industries—including construction—are using unmanned aircraft systems or unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones, and are either exploiting legal loopholes or ignoring laws altogether. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is now in a 60-day “notice and comment” period that is open to the public. Once that period ends, the FAA will consider the comments before putting the rules into law. According to Manchisi, the proposed rules include:

Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
Unmanned aircraft must remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the operator or visual observer.
Maximum altitude is 500 feet above ground level.
Preflight inspection by the operator is required.
Operators are required to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a sUAS rating from the FAA.

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

Kaylin Jolivette Named LADC's Construction and Commercial Practice Chair

October 09, 2023 — Kaylin Jolivette - Lewis Brisbois
Lafayette, La. (August 15, 2023) – Lafayette Associate Kaylin E. Jolivette was recently named Practice Chair of the Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel (LADC) Construction and Commercial practice. LADC is comprised of over 1,400 attorneys in Louisiana who are engaged in the defense of civil litigation. The organization creates CLE programs tailored to individual practices throughout the year to provide members with the knowledge and skills to be among the top litigators in the region. Ms. Jolivette is a member of the General Liability Practice. Her past experience includes practice in an array of civil litigation matters as both plaintiff and defense counsel from the pre-trial litigation phases, to trial and appeals, in various areas including products liability, privacy law, health care law, energy litigation, contractual disputes, personal injury, alternate dispute resolution, and construction litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kaylin Jolivette, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Jolivette may be contacted at Kaylin.Jolivette@lewisbrisbois.com

Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

March 04, 2019 — Craig O’Neill & Laura Rossi - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach. Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018) Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

February 10, 2020 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES