CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Green Investigations Are Here: U.S. Department of Justice Turns Towards Environmental Enforcement Actions, Deprioritizes Compliance Assistance

January 10, 2022 — Karen C. Bennett, R. Morgan Salisbury, Sean P. Shecter & Rose Quam-Wickham - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (January 4, 2022) - Two high-ranking Department of Justice (DOJ) officials announced that the Biden Administration is prioritizing environmental regulatory enforcement over compliance assistance. Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), and Deborah Harris of the DOJ’s Environmental Crimes Section, indicated in mid-December 2021 that companies and individuals should expect more “vigorous enforcement,” with an emphasis on criminal enforcement. This new policy is in contrast to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)'s previous emphasis on compliance and pollution mitigation instead of enforcement actions under the prior administration. DOJ’s new policy of promoting enforcement actions is consistent with the Biden Administration’s overall efforts to prioritize environmental justice. In April 2021, as explained in a previous Lewis Brisbois Client Alert, OECA released two memoranda directing enforcement teams to consider a variety of tools to resolve enforcement actions, including increased inspections, restitution, and reparation for victims of environmental crimes and overstepping state regulators where necessary. Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois, R. Morgan Salisbury, Lewis Brisbois, Sean P. Shecter, Lewis Brisbois and Rose Quam-Wickham, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Salisbury may be contacted at Morgan.Salisbury@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Shecter may be contacted at Sean.Shecter@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Quam-Wickham may be contacted at Rose.QuamWickham@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

March 01, 2017 — Bruce Cleeland & Michael J. Worth - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2017 No. S233096, the California Supreme Court held that when a trial court determines an expert opinion is inadmissible because expert disclosure requirements were not met, the opinion must be excluded from consideration at summary judgment if an objection is raised. Plaintiff Mr. Perry sued defendants Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, alleging personal injuries after plaintiff fell at a property owned by Bakewell and leased by Chase. Defendant Chase served plaintiff with a demand for the exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff made no disclosure. Thereafter, the trial date was continued. Defendant Bakewell subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff submitted declarations of two experts opining that the stairs on which plaintiff fell were in disrepair and failed to comply with building codes and industry standards. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

April 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit, applying California law, affirmed the district court's decision finding there was no coverage for construction defects. Archer W. Contractors v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3796 (9th Cir. March 2, 2017). Archer Western Contractors (AWC) was the general contractor for the San Diego County Water Authority's emergency water storage project. The pump house and turbine generators suffered property damage. The damage flowed from AWC's allegedly defective work on the property. After settling a construction defect lawsuit brought against it by the Water Authority, AWC filed this case against National Union for failing to indemnity portions of the settlement agreement. 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

---

Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

August 26, 2015 — Shobhana Chandra – Bloomberg
Purchases of new homes in the U.S. rebounded in July, bolstering signs the real-estate market is picking up. Sales climbed 5.4 percent, the biggest gain this year, to a 507,000 annualized pace from a 481,000 rate in the prior month, a Commerce Department report showed Tuesday in Washington. The median forecast of 75 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 510,000. Demand had declined 7.7 percent in June. Demand for new properties is likely to keep expanding amid strong employment, low borrowing costs and a lack of available existing homes from which to choose. The improving outlook may spur more residential construction, contributing to the economic expansion in the second half of the year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

September 20, 2021 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Please join Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP in congratulating Woodland Hills Partner John O’Meara for being selected as one of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for the third year in a row! Membership among America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators highlights the accomplishments of the nation’s most esteemed and skilled Civil Defense attorneys. Only 100 attorneys in each state receive this honor and candidates for membership are identified through third-party research or peer nominations by America’s Top 100 or elite attorneys in the community. Candidates are judged by the attorney’s lifetime legal achievements, professional experience, significant case results, peer reputation, client satisfaction, other notable honors, media notoriety, and community impact. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

May 13, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As regular readers of Construction Law Musings are well aware, I like to discuss mechanic’s liens. Whether it is their picky nature, the way court’s treat them or the soon to take effect changes in the form, mechanic’s liens are a topic near and dear to my heart as a construction attorney. This past month the Fairfax Circuit Court took on the intersection of mechanic’s lien priority under Virginia Code section 43-21 (the lien priority statute) and what constitute necessary parties that must be named in any enforcement suit. In Marines Plumbing, LLC v. Durbin, et al., the Court discussed an all too typical scenario. Marines Plumbing performed repair work on the defendants’ property and the defendants did not pay for the work. Marines Plumbing recorded a memorandum of lien and subsequently sued to enforce that lien. In filing its suit, Marines Plumbing failed to name the trustees and lender on a deed of trust securing the loan on the property. Needless to say, the Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to name necessary parties (lender and trustees). 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

---

Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

March 26, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result. Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda. At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

March 22, 2017 — Alex R. Baghdassarian & Joseph S. Sestay – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
New California legislation affecting public works contractors was adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 626, sponsored by the Union Trade Contractors Association of California and endorsed by various trade and contractor associations including the AGC. AB 626, which was intended to assist contractors in presenting claims against public agencies, affords new opportunities, and some potential pitfalls, to contractors and subcontractors submitting claims to public owners. The legislation, codified at California Public Contract Code (PCC) section 9204, is effective for public works contracts entered into after January 1, 2017. All public entities (including the CSUS and the UC system), other than certain Departments of the State (CalTrans, High-Speed Rail Authority, Water Resources, Parks and Recreation, Corrections and Rehabilitation, General Services and the Military) are bound by the provisions of PCC Section 9204. PCC 9204 establishes a mandatory pre-litigation process for all claims by contractors on a public works project. It is an attempt to address the reluctance of public owners to promptly and fairly negotiate change orders on projects, putting some teeth to the mandate of existing law under PCC Section 7104, which precludes public owners from shifting to the contractor the risk of addressing differing subsurface and/or concealed hazardous site conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph S. Sestay, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Sestay may be contacted at jsestay@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---