Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

May 12, 2016 — Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Importance of the Recent Amendment to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

January 22, 2024 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver

Every litigator understands that expert witnesses play a key role in litigation, especially when dealing with construction issues. Expert testimony at trial can be a deciding factor in persuading a judge or jury in your client’s favor. It is so important that, as parties get closer to trial, litigators often spend considerable time filing motions to limit or disqualify certain aspects of expert testimony in an effort to gain an advantage at trial. Because experts are a key aspect of the trial process, it is important to understand the various rules governing use of expert testimony, primarily Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

On December 1, 2023, amendments to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence went into effect which added the language in underline below and removed the language which is crossed out:

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witness

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(d) ~~the expert has reliably applied~~ expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

Some Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act Claim

June 28, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Miller Act is close to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. Payment bond claims under the Miller Act help protect subcontractors on construction projects where the national government or its agencies are the owners of the property and therefore mechanic’s liens are unavailable. Even where you follow the proper claims process under this statute, the question remains as to what sorts of costs can be included in the claim. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA gives some insight into the limits of claims under the federal Miller Act. In Dickson v Forney Enterprises, Inc. et. al., the Court looked at the question of whether costs of a project manager’s purely clerical duties can be included and correspondingly whether performing those duties can extend the relevant one-year limitations period for filing suit. 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

New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

October 28, 2015 — James Tarmy – Bloomberg
The Anglo-Iraqi starchitect Zaha Hadid has designed just two residential buildings in the U.S., one in New York (520 West 28th Street in the Chelsea Gallery District next to the High Line) and one in Miami (One Thousand Museum, next to PAMM and overlooking Biscayne Bay). Both have yet to be completed and both, as it happens, have penthouses priced in the region of $50 million. Two trophy properties by a Pritzker Prize-winning architect and two almost identical price tags? (The Miami penthouse clocks in at a mere $49 million, the New York penthouse an even $50 million.) It’s practically begging for a head-to-head comparison. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg

AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

July 22, 2024 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
The American Arbitration Association (AAA) recently revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (“the Rules”). Several notable changes went into effect March 1, 2024, involving the scope of confidentiality, regular and fast track procedures, and updates to certain monetary thresholds. I. Revisions to Regular Track Procedures Rule 45: Confidentiality For the first time, confidentiality is now the default standard. Under Rule 45(a), arbitrators must keep all matters confidential unless otherwise required by law, court order or the agreement of the parties. Rule 45(b) allows a mediator to issue confidentiality orders and “take measures for protecting trade secrets and confidential information.” Rule 7: Consolidation and Joinder Under the new provisions, consolidation and joinder requests must be filed before confirmation of the Merits Arbitrator’s appointment. This language eliminates a previous option that allowed confirmation up to 90 days after filing of such requests. A failure to timely respond to a joinder request will result in a waiver of objections. Now, a party must establish both good cause and prejudice for a successful joinder request after confirmation of the arbitrator. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

September 20, 2021 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

July 01, 2019 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court. Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing. The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com

The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

February 23, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
This past year we wrote about a case involving California’s prompt payment laws and the current state of confusion with the prompt payment statutes which are scattered throughout the state Code and which are inconsistent in the use of their terminology and, thus importantly, application. In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B258860 (December 18, 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed whether under one of the prompt payment statutes, Civil Code section 8814, a general contractor may withhold retention without being subject to prompt payment penalties if there is a dispute of any kind between the general contractor and the subcontractor, or only when the dispute relates to the retention itself. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES