Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

August 13, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California Private Works project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. The process starts with the recording of a mechanics lien in the office of the County Recorder where the property in question is located. As noted below, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that, the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). A further general description of the rules is as follows: Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Using the Prevention Doctrine

April 22, 2019 — David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
The following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it. One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Erhart may be contacted at derhart@grsm.com

Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

July 14, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals [see prior post here] and determined that a subcontractor did not have a duty to defend the developer upon tender under an indemnify provision in the parties' contract. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, 2016 Haw. LEXIS 155 (June 27, 2016). A simplified version of the detailed facts and procedural history follows. The case involved the wrongful death of Mona Arthur. Mona typically gardened on the hillside behind her home. She would cross a concrete drainage ditch and climb over a two-foo-high chain length fence to reach the hillside. Mona was found lying in a concrete ditch with severe head injuries, which ultimately led to her death. Her husband and estate sued for her wrongful death. Claims were asserted for negligence in failing to build a fence higher than two feet, which would have prevented Mona from having access to the garden. Defendants included the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Kamehameha Investment Corporation ("KIC"), the developer; Design Partners, Inc., the architect; Coastal Construction Company, the general contractor; and Sato and Associates, the civil engineer. The second amended complaint sought punitive damages against KIC. 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

No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

March 12, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
Colorado’s new procedure for interlocutory appeals has its limits. In the recent decision of Rich v. Ball Ranch Partnership, ___ P.3d ___, 2014 COA 6 (2015), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Appellate Rule 4.2 does not permit interlocutory review of questions of law in “garden-variety” or “run-of-the-mill” contract disputes. This resolves a subtle question that has been lingering since Colorado first created the interlocutory appeal process four years ago. Prior to 2011, Colorado did not permit civil litigants to seek appellate review prior to final judgment, except in a small handful of situations. As I discussed in an article at the time, this changed with the passage of C.R.S. § 13-4-102.1 and the adoption of Rule 4.2, which granted the court of appeals discretion to permit the immediate appeal of certain district court orders. These provisions allowed parties to seek interlocutory review of orders before the conclusion of a case if a district court could certify that (1) immediate review might promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation, and (2) the order involved a controlling and unresolved question of law. The rule was patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides similar relief in the federal courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

April 15, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Denver Business Journal reported that a construction defect reform bill has “passed the Colorado Senate by a 24-11 vote Tuesday, with six Democrats joining all 18 Republicans in the chamber in backing the measure.” The bill now moves to the House. According to the Denver Business Journal, the bill “faces a tougher path in the House, where Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Gunbarrel, has said she was not going to support a bill that does not include a provision giving aggrieved condominium owners the right to take their disputes with builders to court. No such amendment was added in the Senate.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

February 14, 2013 — Heidi Gassman — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Keirns Construction Co. (“Keirns”) hired Landmark Engineering, Ltd. (“Landmark”) to provide a geotechnical investigation and foundation designs for two duplexes Keirns built in Larimer County. Keirns and Landmark signed one contract in 2001 for the geotechnical work and two separate contracts in 2005 for the foundation design of the two duplexes. Each contract contained an identical “risk allocation clause,” which had language specifically limiting Landmark’s liability to Keirns. The risk allocation clause also had language specifically prohibiting claims against individuals and only allowing claims against a corporation. After the two duplexes were built, foundation problems developed, and Keirns filed suit against Landmark for breach of contract and negligence. Keirns also filed suit against two individual employees of Landmark, Wayne Thompson and Larry Miller, for negligence. Messrs. Thompson and Miller performed the geotechnical and design services pursuant to the contracts. Landmark and Messrs. Thompson and Miller filed a motion seeking to enforce the risk of allocation clauses in the contracts, thereby limiting Landmark’s liability. Messrs. Thompson and Miller also filed a summary judgment motion seeking their dismissal from the case based on the prohibition in the risk allocation clause against asserting claims against individuals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman
Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

June 15, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
I am back. It feels like an entirety since I last posted. But a hellacious trial schedule got me off the blogosphere for some time. Plus, there was nothing to write about. But I am back with a bang thanks to a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning the interplay of a forum selection clause appearing in an arbitration clause in a construction contract and the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. In Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. v. Hospitality Builders, Inc., the federal court (Judge Joyner) ruled that the federal arbitration act preempted the Payment Act’s prohibition on forum selection clauses and held that an arbitration must proceed in South Dakota even though the construction project were the work was performed was located in Pennsylvania. The Payment Act applies to all commercial construction projects performed in Pennsylvania. As some you might know, Section 514 of the Payment Act, 73 P.S. 514, prohibits choice of law and forum selection clauses. It states “[m]aking a contract subject to the laws of another state or requiring that any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process on the contract occur in another state, shall be unenforceable.” Therefore, if a construction contract is for a project located in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law must apply and all disputes must be adjudicated in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

May 30, 2018 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
On May 3, 2018, Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 899 into law, officially making it Act 389. Act 389 modifies O.C.G.A. § 13-10-4 and § 36-91-23 relating to public works bidding and contracts of state and local governments, respectively. Both sections are modified in the same bill because they contain the same language. The bill prohibits the disqualification of bidders based upon lack of previous experience with the project’s desired construction delivery method. Before the modifications, the code protected a contractor from disqualification only for lack of previous experience on a job of comparable size. After the modification, the law expands to prohibit disqualification based on lack of previous experience with comparable job size and lack of previous experience with the construction delivery method. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES