Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A judge has ruled that a plaintiff can go forward with her suit that she was injured by a defective archway during a birthday party. A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals issued this ruling on January 23, 2012, in the case of Trujillo v. Cosio.

Ms. Trujillo attended a birthday party at the home of Maria Cosio and Joel Verduzco. A piñata was hung between a tree and a brick archway. Ms. Trujillo went to get candy that had fallen from the piñata, during which the archway fell on her hand. Subsequent examination of the archway showed that it had not been “properly anchored to the supporting pillars to protect the arch from falling.”

Ms. Cosio and Mr. Verduzco argued that they could not have been aware of the defective nature of the archway’s construction, as it had been built at the request of the prior property owner. The structure was constructed without building permits. Mark Burns, a civil engineer testifying for the plaintiff, said that “a reasonable property owner would have thoroughly tested the archway to ensure it was capable of withstanding such horizontal forces before allowing children to enter into the area.” Mr. Burns noted that twenty rope pulls would have been sufficient to demonstrate the structure’s instability.

The trial court rejected Mr. Burn’s statements, finding that the respondents did not have any knowledge of the defect and that a visual inspection should have sufficed. The court noted that this a triable issue, whether visual inspection suffices, or whether the property owners should have done as Mr. Burns suggested and yank a rope twenty times. The court noted that “although a jury may ultimately disagree with Burn’s opinion, it was supported by sufficient foundation and was not speculative.”

The opinion was written by Judge Flier, with Judges Rubin and Grimes concurring.

Read the court’s decison…

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

Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

July 30, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that a policy's loss payment provision did not bar a post-loss assignment. One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 2015 Fl. App. LEXIS 7643 (Fla. Ct. App. May 20, 2015). After One Cell performed emergency water removal for the insured, the insured assigned his rights to policy proceeds as payment. One Cell alleged that Security First refused to reimburse the insured adequately for the services provided. One Cell filed suit, and Security First moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion based upon the policy's non-assignment provision. One Cell appealed. One Cell argued post-loss assignments were valid under Florida law even when the policy contained an anti-assignment provision, and the right to payment accrued on the date of the loss. 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

Microsoft Said to Weigh Multibillion-Dollar Headquarters Revamp

September 17, 2015 — Dina Bass & Hui-Yong Yu - Bloomberg
Microsoft Corp. is considering a multibillion-dollar revamp of its headquarters campus in suburban Seattle, seeking to foster more collaboration among employees and attract young engineers, according to people with knowledge of the plans. The software giant has hired architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP as part of the effort at its Redmond, Washington, offices, said the people, who asked not to be named because the plans aren’t public. Skidmore Owings designed Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, and is helping Microsoft with a makeover of its much smaller campus in Mountain View, California. Microsoft hasn’t yet decided whether to move forward with the Redmond overhaul, said one of the people familiar with the matter. Reprinted courtesy of Dina Bass, Bloomberg and Hui-Yong Yu, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

February 12, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
In a recent Board decision dated December 13, 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers sought to amend its answer in the case of APPEALS OF – KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., under Contract No. W912GB-13-C-0011. The proposed amendment introduces an affirmative defense, contending that Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) made material misrepresentations in its proposal, rendering the fully-performed contract void ab initio. Background: The contract in question, executed on July 9, 2013, was for the construction of an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System site in Deveselu, Romania, with a firm, fixed-price amount of $134,211,592. The Corps moved to amend its answer to allege that KBR’s material misrepresentations induced the Corps to enter the contract, justifying the voiding of the contract. The alleged misrepresentations include issues related to subcontractor quotes, firm fixed prices, subcontracting plans, and more. Motion to Amend and Legal Defense: The Corps, despite delays in formally amending its answer, argued that KBR was aware of the potential affirmative defense before the conclusion of fact discovery. The proposed affirmative defense asserts that KBR made eight material misrepresentations in its proposal, upon which the Corps relied in awarding the contract and defending against a GAO protest. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

July 10, 2023 — Marisa Miller, John Yacovelle & Kazim Naqvi - Sheppard Mullin
On June 10, 2023, a jury in Portland, Oregon found PacifiCorp and Pacific Power (collectively, “PacifiCorp”) liable for negligence, trespass, and nuisance based on a series of four wildfires that occurred during Labor Day weekend in 2020. PacifiCorp prevailed against the plaintiffs on the claim of inverse condemnation. With respect to the tort-based claims, the jury awarded approximately $72 million in compensatory damages to 17 plaintiffs. The jury later found PacifiCorp liable for $18 million in punitive damages, or one quarter of the compensatory damages that the jury awarded to the 17 plaintiffs. The jury’s liability findings apply to a broader class of owners, whose damages will need to be individually proven in a yet-to-be defined second phase of proceedings. Post-verdict motion practice and appeals may affect the jury’s findings. Reprinted courtesy of Marisa Miller, Sheppard Mullin, John Yacovelle, Sheppard Mullin and Kazim Naqvi, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Miller may be contacted at mmiller@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Yacovelle may be contacted at jyacovelle@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Naqvi may be contacted at knaqvi@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

July 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:

1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).

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

Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

October 30, 2023 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Guevara, 2023 IL App (1st) 221425-U, P2, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals addressed an insurance carrier’s duty to defend under a homeowners insurance policy. The underlying suit stemmed from an alleged injury suffered at a residence located in Berwyn, Illinois and owned by named insured Luz Melina Guevara, a defendant in the suit. After Guevara tendered the suit, State Farm filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Guevara because Guevara did not “reside” at the insured premises. The policy defined the "insured location" as the "residence premises," and residence premises was defined as "the one, two, three or four-family dwelling, other structures, and grounds or that part of any other building; where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations." In response to the underlying lawsuit, Guevara had filed an answer and affirmative defenses in which Guevara denied the allegation that "At all relevant times, [Guevara] resided in Berwyn, Cook County, Illinois." Guevara admitted that she owned the Berwyn property but denied that she "resided in, maintained and controlled the property". The declaratory judgment complaint alleged (among other things) that, based on admissions by Guevara in her answer, the Berwyn residence was not an "insured location" under the State Farm policy. State Farm moved for summary judgment at the trial court level on this ground and summary judgment was granted in State Farm’s favor. An appeal ensued wherein the parties disagreed as to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that, under the language of the policy, State Farm had no duty to defend because the Berwyn property was not an "insured location" because she did not "reside" there. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
According to the analytics and advisory firm PPR, the Boston-area market is “ungodly tight.” So even with all the building planned for the area, it’s likely to make the market normal and not lead to a glut. PPR predicts that the building boom may cool off in 2016, with the next mayoral administration. Some of the condo real estate has been fetching multi-million prices. Sue Hawkes, president and CEO of The Collaborative Cos. Points out that there are about 1,500 units in Boston priced in excess of $2 million. She wonders about future buyers in the luxury market. “Where are all these people going to come from?” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES