Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

April 12, 2021 — Brian F. Mark - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
“Common law indemnification is generally available ‘in favor of one who is held responsible solely by operation of law because of his relationship to the wrongdoer.’” McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 375 (2011), quoting Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 690 (1990). What is Common Law Indemnification and Who Can Assert it? Indemnification, in general terms, is the right of one party to shift a loss to another and may be based upon an express contract or an implied obligation. Bellevue S. Assoc. v. HRH Constr. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 282 (1991). Based on a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor, common law indemnification, or implied indemnification, permits one who was compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages paid to the injured party. D’Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454, 460 (1982); Curreri v. Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 505, 507 (2d Dept. 2008). The premise of common law indemnification is vicarious liability, defined as “liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Common law indemnification “reflects an inherent fairness as to which party should be held liable for indemnity.” McCarthy, 17 N.Y.3d at 375. It is a restitution concept which permits shifting the loss because, to fail to do so, would result in the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. Mas, 75 N.Y.2d at 680, 690; Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Islam, 172 A.D.3d 1342, 1343 (2d Dept. 2019). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian F. Mark, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Mark may be contacted at bfm@hurwitzfine.com

OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued $400,000 in fines to two contactors who were involved with the collapse of a building in Philadelphia. Six people died and 14 more were injured in an adjacent building. OSHA concluded that the two firms, Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting, violated workplace safety regulations 12 times in their demolition of the building. According to OSHA, Campbell Construction removed structural supports and portions of the lower floors of the building while upper stories were still being demolished. Both firms failed to provide its workers with fall protection equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

July 23, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit determined that the Umbrella policies took effect once the primary insurance was exhausted by claims not covered by the Umbrella policies. Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. W&T Offshore, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11775 (5th Cir. June 23, 2014). W&T had primary and Umbrella/Excess coverage to protect its offshore oil rigs from hurricane damage. The primary policies covered property damage and third party claims. The Umbrella policies only covered third-party claims. All policies covered Removal of Debris (ROD). In September 2008, Hurricane Ike caused damage to 150 offshore platforms in which W&T had an interest. W&T submitted over $150 million in claims for property damage to the primary carriers. The primary policies had a $10 million self-insured retention (SIR). The primary policies covered $150 million in coverage over the $10 million SIR. Anticipating that W&T would submit all of its ROD claims, which were estimated to exceed $50 million, the Umbrella carriers filed suit 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

Ignoring Employee ADA Accommodation Requests Can Be Costly – A Cautionary Tale

March 29, 2021 — Peter Shapiro - Lewis Brisbois
As all employers should well know by now, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and many state and local counterparts may require employers to engage in an interactive process in response to a disabled employee’s request for a workplace accommodation. A recent ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates why employers have a very strong financial incentive to be proactive in adopting and rigorously enforcing their disability accommodation policies. In Burnett v. Ocean Properties, decided on February 2, 2021, a wheelchair user employed by a hotel chain call center complained internally that the office’s entrance was not accessible to him. It had heavy doors beyond which was a downward slope that caused the plaintiff’s wheelchair to roll backwards as the door closed on him, requiring him to exert greater force as he struggled to enter. He asked that push-button automatic doors be installed. The employer did not take any meaningful steps to address the complaint with the plaintiff. Eventually he was injured as he tried to open the door. Still, the employer did not follow up on his accommodation request. The plaintiff eventually filed an administrative charge with the Maine Human Rights Commission. The employer met with the plaintiff at that time, but claimed lack of familiarity with ADA compliance requirements and took no action to address the complaint. The plaintiff eventually resigned and filed suit in federal court when the administrative process was completed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com

California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

June 30, 2014 — Michael B. Marois – Bloomberg
The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration has approved an environmental review needed to begin building a portion of a $68 billion California high-speed rail line that has been mired in lawsuits. The agency, part of the Transportation Department, said in a release that it cleared a 114-mile (183-kilometer) stretch of the project in the Central Valley. The California High-Speed Rail Authority has been blocked from selling bonds to begin construction of the first U.S. bullet train until a court decides whether details of the financing were adequately disclosed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. Marois, Bloomberg
Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net

OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

November 02, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
On October 23, 2017, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard (Construction Silica Standard). OSHA enforcement of its Construction Silica Standard actually began on September 23, 2017, but for a period of 30 days, OSHA offered compliance assistance in lieu of enforcement for employers who were making good faith efforts to comply with the Construction Silica Standard. California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has a nearly identical construction silica standard that requires employers to limit worker exposure to respirable crystalline silica above 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air (25 μg/m3) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) under any foreseeable condition. 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

Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

October 21, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
April 23, 1985 will live in infamy. The Coca Cola Company, responding to diminishing sales as its “sweeter” rival Pepsi-Cola gained market share, announced that it was changing its “secret” recipe and introducing a new kind of Coke, referred to by the public simply as, “new Coke.” The reaction was unexpected. People around the world began hoarding “old Coke.” Protest groups, such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America, sprang up around the county. Angry letters addressed to “Chief Dodo” were sent to Coca-Cola’s chief executive officer. And even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, joined the backlash calling “new Coke” a “sign of American capital decadence.” By July it was over. Coca-Cola announced that it would once again produce “old Coke,” and in a sign (I’m sure Fidel Castro would say) of American arrogance, announced that “old Coke” would be produced under the name “Coca-Cola Classic” alongside “new Coke” which would continue to be called “Coca-Cola” suggesting that “new Coke” would be the Coke of today as well as the future. By 1992, however, “new Coke” whose sales dwindled to 3% of market share was demoted to “Coke II” and by 2002 was discontinued entirely. The moral of the story: Change the recipe at your own risk. Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks In the next case, Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B258649, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (August 31, 2015), the corollary might well be change the recipe design at your own risk. 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

Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!

April 19, 2021 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
Bryan Stofferahn has been with BWB&O’s Oakland office since 2016 and has been practicing law since 2002. Mr. Stofferahn focuses his practice on insurance defense matters and was lead counsel on the Millennium Tower construction defect case in San Francisco, which was the largest construction defect action in the country. Outside of work, Bryan is passionate about traveling the world with his wife Claire and has finished in last place in two separate chili cook-offs (pre-COVID, of course). August Hotchkin has been with BWB&O since 2013 and helped open the Reno office located in Northern Nevada in 2016. He is duly licensed in both Nevada and California, handling various legal matters, especially complex litigation, throughout Northern Nevada and Northern California. Mr. Hotchkin has taken several cases to trial, including a successful defense verdict on a wrongful death matter. He has also argued countless dispositive motions as well as having cases heard at the Appellate level. During his free time, Mr. Hotchkin enjoys golfing, snowboarding, and spending time with his family and friends, especially up at Lake Tahoe. Eileen Gaisford has been with BWB&O’s Woodland Hill’s office for almost a decade and is licensed to practice law in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES