Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022

December 18, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Thank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 16th consecutive year. The 16 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my time as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 12 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 12 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers that were elected along with me, see the 2022 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law. So without further ado, thank you to all of you who voted for me. I truly appreciate your continued confidence and support of my construction law practice. Your yearly votes always prod me to learn and continually improve to meet your expectations and keep my practice at this high level. I also couldn’t do this without the great support from friends and family (not to mention clients), so my gratitude goes out to these great folks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

May 15, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If a construction lien is recorded against real property, the lien can be transferred to a lien transfer bond. This transfers the security or collateral of the construction lien from the real property to the lien transfer bond. The lien transfer bond can be a bond posted by a surety company or it can be cash. This is governed by Florida Statute s. 713.24. The amount of the lien does not dictate the amount of the lien transfer bond. Rather, the lien transfer bond needs to be in the amount of the lien, plus interest on that amount for three years, plus $1,000 or 25% of the amount of the lien (whichever is greater so factor in the 25%) to cover attorney’s fees. Fla. Stat. 713.24(1). If you are looking to transfer a construction lien to a lien transfer bond, make sure to consult with counsel. Keep in mind there is a statutory mechanism for a lienor to increase the lien transfer bond to cover attorney’s fees and costs and notice the word “must” in the statute below. Pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24(3):

Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such security is deposited, or file a motion in a pending action to enforce a lien, for an order to require additional security, reduction of security, change or substitution of sureties, payment of discharge thereof, or any other matter affecting said security. If the court finds that the amount of the deposit or bond in excess of the amount claimed in the claim of lien is insufficient to pay the lienor’s attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in the action to enforce the lien, the court must increase the amount of the cash deposit or lien transfer bond. Nothing in this section shall be construed to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the circuit courts over transfer bond claims for nonpayment of an amount within the monetary jurisdiction of the county courts.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

July 25, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's coverage action was dismissed by the federal court in favor of the pending case in state court. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v Marquez, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108125 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2021). The underlying lawsuit was filed because of of an incident involving a golf cart on a sidewalk owned by the AOAO. The Marquezes owned the golf cart that injured the Murphy's child. Southern-Owners issued a CGL policy to the AOAO. The Marquezes submitted a claim to Souther-Owners for coverage in the underlying lawsuit as additional insureds under the policy. Southern-Owners defended the AOAO and the Marquezes in the underlying lawsuit pursuant to a reservation of rights. The underlying complaint alleged that the Marquezes negligently permitted their daughter to operate the golf cart on the AOAO's pedestrian walkway. Further, the AOAO negligently failed to reasonably maintain the premises. 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

Largest Dam Removal Program in US History Reaches Milestone

December 11, 2023 — Mary K. Miller - Engineering News-Record
All work associated with removal of the first of four hydroelectric dams slated for demolition on the Klamath River completed in early November, according to the dam owner, Klamath River Renewal Corp. Demolition of the four dams on the Klamath River that flows through parts of Oregon and California is the largest dam removal project in U.S. history. Reprinted courtesy of Mary K. Miller, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

March 31, 2014 — Michelle Coburn and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the longstanding statutory employer doctrine and related five-part test of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. In doing so, the court overruled the Superior Court and held that Worthington was immune from tort liability as the statutory employer of plaintiff Earl Patton. Worthington was the general contractor for a project to construct an addition to a church. Worthington subcontracted with Patton Construction, Inc. to perform carpentry work. Earl Patton was an employee and the sole owner of Patton Construction, Inc. He was injured in a scissor lift accident while performing work on the church. Patton sued Worthington alleging failure to maintain safe conditions at the worksite. After a trial, a jury awarded Patton and his wife a little more than $1.5 million in damages. Before trial, Worthington had moved for summary judgment arguing that it was Patton’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under that law, general contractors are secondarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits to employees of subcontractors. Like traditional employers, statutory employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries in situations where they are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation payments. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Coburn, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Ms. Coburn may be contacted at coburnm@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

July 18, 2018 — Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters & Geoffrey B. Fehling – Hunton Insurance Recovery Law Blog
A Connecticut court recently denied a motion to compel appraisal of a claim for coverage of a commercial property damage claim, holding that, where the insurance policy at issue provides for appraisal of disputes related to the value or quantum or a loss suffered—not the rights and liabilities of the parties under the policy—appraisal is premature. The decision relied on law that equates insurance appraisal to arbitration and follows a number of decisions holding that parties cannot expand the scope of appraisal clauses to resolve questions of coverage or liability where, as in this case, those issues are not supported by the applicable policy language. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters and Geoffrey B. Fehling Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

April 15, 2024 — Jordan A. Hutcheson and Stephanie Rolfsness - Watt Tieder
The Contract Disputes Act (the “CDA”), 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 7101 et seq., which has provided the statutory framework for resolution of most contract disputes between the federal government and its contractors since 1978, has recently been the subject of changes in judicial interpretation, despite no corresponding statutory changes. The CDA’s implementing provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), require that contractors submit a claim to the government in the form of written demand to a contracting officer requesting a final decision and seeking the payment of money in a sum certain prior to pursuing resolution via board or court. However, with respect to the sum certain requirement, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late 2023 determining that this requirement “should not be given the jurisdictional brand” as it has categorically received in the past. Rather, the court concluded that the sum certain requirement is merely an element of a claim for relief under the CDA that a contractor must satisfy to recover. This rebranding does not debase the sum certain requirement, but it does indicate a renewed focus on what constitutes “jurisdictional” in government contracts litigation. Reprinted courtesy of Jordan A. Hutcheson, Watt Tieder and Stephanie Rolfsness, Watt Tieder Ms. Hutcheson may be contacted at jhutcheson@watttieder.com Ms. Rolfsness may be contacted at srolfsness@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

August 29, 2018 — Nicholas Karkazis - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
To ensure that construction contractors and subcontractors receive timely progress and retention payments, the California Legislature enacted statutes that impose deadlines and penalties on owners and direct (general) contractors who delay payments. (Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 8800, 8802, 8812, 8814; Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, 10262.5; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5.) However, there is an exception to these deadlines and penalties on both private and public projects. The exception allows an owner or direct contractor to withhold payment1 when there is a good faith dispute between an owner and a direct contractor or between a direct contractor and a subcontractor. (Civ. Code, §§ 8800, subd. (b), 8802, subd. (b), 8812, subd. (c), 8814, subd. (c); Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, subds. (c), (e), 10262.5, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5, subd. (a).) But the term “good faith dispute” has been a source of confusion where direct contractors owe subcontractors retention payments, but want to withhold the payment because of a dispute.2 California appellate courts were split, with one court finding that any type of bona fide dispute justified withholding, and another finding that only disputes related to the payment itself justified withholding. (Compare Martin Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1401 [any bona fide dispute could justify withholding] with East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742 [disputes related to the payment itself may justify withholding].) In May 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified that for a direct contractor to withhold a retention payment on a private project, the good faith dispute must somehow relate to the payment itself. (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1097-1098.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas Karkazis, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Karkazis may be contacted at nkarkazis@grsm.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES