Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Recent Decision Further Jeopardizes Availability of Additional Insured Coverage in New York

July 08, 2024 — Nina Catanzaro & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Additional insured endorsements often provide “blanket” coverage to persons or organizations as required by a written contract. However, the wording of the “blanket” language is critically important, as the inclusion of certain phrases in an additional insured endorsement can result in a denial of coverage for the upstream party. For example, risk transfer issues can arise when an additional insured endorsement provides coverage to parties “when you [the named insured] and such person or organization [the additional insured] have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement.” Courts in New York (among other jurisdictions) have interpreted this phrase to require contractual privity – that is, only the entity that contracted directly with the named insured is entitled to additional insured coverage, even if the named insured agreed in that contract to provide additional insured coverage for others as well. The same goes for the phrase “any person or organization with whom you [the named insured] have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract.” Reprinted courtesy of Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

March 28, 2022 — Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis Brisbois
Newark, N.J. (March 21, 2022) - Late in 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed the issue of allocating damages in personal injury cases in which the plaintiff asserts claims against successive tortfeasors, such as medical malpractice in the treatment of a slip and fall injury caused by negligence. The decision in Glassman v. Friedel, 249 N.J. 199 (2021) overruled and replaced the long-held principles established in Ciluffo v. Middlesex General Hospital, 146 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1977) regarding successive liability. Ciluffo held that, when an initial tortfeasor settles before trial, the non-settling defendants in a successive tort were entitled to a pro tanto credit for the settlement amount against any damages assessed against them. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division in 2020, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey last year, abandoned that framework for one more consistent with statutory contribution law in the Garden State. In Glassman v. Friedel, 465 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2020), the Appellate Division held that the application of the principles in Ciluffo in a negligence case has no support in modern jurisprudence, thus limiting its application. It rejected the holding in Ciluffo in light of the state legislature’s enactment of the Comparative Negligence Act, which requires juries to apportion damages between successive events and apportion fault among the parties responsible for each event. The appellate division went on to hold that a non-settling, successive tortfeasor may present proofs at trial as to the negligence of the settling tortfeasor, and that the burden of proof as to the initial tortfeasor’s negligence being the proximate cause of the second causative event indeed lies on the non-settling defendant. In sum, the appellate division in Glassman established steps the jury can use to determine successive tortfeasor liability, but largely treated it as one, attenuated incident. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

September 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. 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

2016 California Construction Law Upate

December 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature saw the introduction of 2,297 bills during the first half of the 2015-2016 legislative session of which 1,010 bills were signed into law. For contractors, the bill (now law), having the most immediate effect is SB 467, which increases the license bond amount required of all contractors from $12,500 to $15,000. In addition to licensing changes, 2015 saw the enactment of a number of bills providing for alternative project delivery methods from design-build, to CM at risk, to public-private partnerships, and even the expanded use of enhanced infrastructure financing districts as the state enters its fourth year since the abolishment of redevelopment agencies. 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

Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

November 10, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
U.S. News – Best Lawyers® ranked Haight Brown & Bonesteel on the 2017 “Best Law Firms” list in the Metropolitan Tier 1 Ranking in Los Angeles for their defense work in insurance law and personal injury litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

January 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

June 26, 2014 — William Selway and Brian Chappatta – Bloomberg
No state is needier than West Virginia when it comes to fixing crumbling highways, airports and water works, with annual repair needs of $1,035 per resident that’s three times the national average. Yet even with borrowing costs hovering close to four-decade lows, lawmakers rejected a January proposal to sell $1 billion of bonds to repair roads that run through the Appalachian Mountains. Budget cuts were a more immediate concern, they said. Across the U.S., localities are refraining from raising new funds in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression left them with unprecedented deficits. Rather than take advantage of Federal Reserve (FDTR) policy that’s held benchmark interest rates at historic lows since December 2008, they’re repaying obligations by the most on record. Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Mr. Chappatta may be contacted at bchappatta1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Selway and Brian Chappatta, Bloomberg

Why’d You Have To Say That?

October 09, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A surety seeking collateral from indemnitors filed suit in federal court in Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the indemnity agreement between the parties. The indemnitors were being called upon to provide collateral as a result of defaults on two Louisiana Department of Transportation projects. Seeking to move the dispute to Louisiana state court from federal court, the indemnitors filed a forum non conveniens motion. Among the arguments of the indemnitors removing the case out of federal court was the doctrine of “direct-benefits” estoppel – a policy which “‘holds a non-signatory to a clause in a contract if it “knowingly exploits the agreement” containing the clause.’ In re Lloyd's Reg. N. Am., Inc., 780 F.3d 283, 291 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov't of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2003)).” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES