CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

David M. McLain, Esq. to Speak at the 2014 CLM Claims College

August 13, 2014 — David M. McLain, Esq. – Colorado Construction Litigation
David McLain will be a speaker at the School of Construction. The Claims College will be held from September 7-10 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. McLain is a founding member of Higgins, Hopkins,McLain & Roswell, LLC, a firm which specializes in construction law and construction litigation throughout Colorado. Mr. McLain received his undergraduate degree from Colorado State University, graduating cum laude, and his law degree from the University of Denver, College of Law. Mr. McLain completed the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance Litigation Management Institute, earning the designation from that organization as a Certified Litigation Management Professional. He has a general civil litigation practice with an emphasis on the defense of complex construction lawsuits on behalf of developers and general contractors. As a result of the experience gained by defending some of Colorado’s largest residential construction defect lawsuits, developers, general contractors, and subcontractors seek out Mr. McLain to consult on risk avoidance and risk management strategies. Currently among his clients are several of the state’s largest home builders, regional and custom builders, and numerous insurance carriers. Mr. McLain is an AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell and is a regular speaker at local, regional, and national seminars regarding construction defect litigation in Colorado. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ownership is Not a Conclusive Factor for Ongoing Operations Additional Insured Coverage

November 15, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Management Services v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (No. D069814, filed 11/14/17), a California appeals court held that an insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor under an “ongoing operations” additional insured (AI) endorsement for damage occurring after the named insured subcontractor completed its work, because the endorsement did not limit coverage solely to liability during the subcontractors’ ongoing operations, but rather, broadly provided coverage for liability “arising out of” such operations. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

February 10, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce the promotion of Jonathan Kaplan to Partner! Jonathan has been with the firm for nearly eight years out of our Newport Beach office. He focuses his practice on general liability defense and construction litigation matters, in addition to handling high-profile plaintiff defect cases. Jonathan earned his law degree from Chapman University School of Law, obtaining a certificate in Environmental, Real Estate and Land Use Law, and went to undergrad at the University of Washington. Jonathan is an active participant within the firm’s Hiring Committee and assists with legal recruitment at the prominent Orange County law schools. Jonathan is also an avid hiker and has coordinated several hiking events for our Southern California offices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

June 16, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Louisiana politicians are still working on a compromise in the state’s construction budget, as reported in the Times-Picayune. Rob Marrianneax, the chair of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, removed a $45 million request from Governor Bobby Jindal and added $4 million for projects that Jindal vetoed last year.



Two senators have formed competing plans to fund redevelopment construction for New Orleans’s Methodist Hospital. Mitch Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans, hoped for $30 million dollars in state bonds. Senator Cynthia Willard-Lewis proposed an amendment that would supply $1.6 million, while Senator J.P. Morrell has an amendment that would supply $4 million.



Read the full story…

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

---

Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

August 01, 2023 — David Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocs
Contractors appreciate how difficult it often is on a technical level to perform work in or near wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas. Such work is even more difficult due to the complex, and ever-changing regulations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA applies to “navigable waters”, which are defined as “the waters of the United States.” To determine whether certain wetlands are in fact “the waters of the United States”, contractors and owners have had to engage in a fact-intensive “significant-nexus” determination dependent upon a lengthy list of hydrological and ecological factors found in the regulations. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the applicability of those regulations and instituted a simpler test to determine whether wetlands on an owner’s property fall within them. In Sackett v. EPA, the Sacketts purchased property near a lake in Idaho. In preparation for building a home, they began backfilling the site with dirt and rocks. A few months later, the EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order informing them that their backfilling violated the CWA because their property was part of protected wetlands. The EPA demanded that the Sacketts immediately undertake activities to restore the site and threatened the Sacketts with penalties of over $40,000 per day if they did not comply. According to the EPA, the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot fell under the jurisdiction of the CWA because they were “adjacent to” (i.e., in the same neighborhood as) an unnamed tributary on the other side of a 30-foot road, which fed into the nearby lake. The EPA concluded that the Sacketts’ wetlands, when considered together with a large nearby wetland complex, significantly affected the ecology of the lake. Thus, the EPA charged that the Sacketts had illegally dumped soil and gravel into “the waters of the United States.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson PC
Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com

---

Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

April 03, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
Unable to discern the meaning of a provision stating that payment of damages would be made "through a trial but not any appeal", the court found an ambiguity.Parker v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9085 (D. Ore. Jan. 23, 2013). The homeowners sued the general contractor for defective construction of their home. In November 2008, the homeowners reached a settlement through mediation with the general contractor. The general contractor's claims under its policies with American Family and Mid-Continent were assigned to the homeowners. The homeowners then sued both insurers for breach of insurance contract and/or equitable contribution. American Family moved for summary judgment, claiming the homeowners did not prove their damages claim against the general contractor "through a trial but not any appeal." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---