Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Paradigm Development and Construction LLC has sued Bristol Township, Pennsylvania over the allegation that town building officials colluded with their clients to issue building code violations after Paradigm prepared to sue the clients. John and Patricia Conard hired Paradigm to construct an addition to their home. During the process, the work went through nine inspections before Paradigm stopped work over a payment dispute. Some months later, Bristol Township issued a notice that Paradigm had 37 violations of the building code. Paradigm alleges that the source was a set of photographs provided by the Conards to the building officials. The lawsuit states that Paradigm “was not notified of any construction deficiencies at the Conard property, and was not provided with an opportunity to discuss, defend or refute the allegations of the Municipal Defendants that Plaintiff has violated the Bristol Building code.” The violation notice was withdrawn a few months later. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

December 21, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract. In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.” 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

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

Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

April 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On August 13, 2011, “[s]even people were killed and dozens were injured when the stage collapsed during a Sugarland concert” at the Indiana State Fair, according to the JC Online. Recently, Mid-America Sound Corp., the company that provided the stage equipment, has settled with the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration (IOSHA), agreeing “to pay a $50,000 fine and increase employee safety training.” "This agreement is a resolution requiring both extensive safety improvements for the construction or erection of temporary roof structures and specifically related employee safety training that will create a safer workplace for Indiana event production workers," Labor Commissioner Rick Ruble said in a statement, as quoted by JC Online. "The agreement produces a positive outcome for everyone involved." The stage equipment company “made no admission of any wrongdoing by entering into the settlement,” according to Michael Moon, attorney for Mid-America Sound Corp., as quoted by JC Online. “Mid-America believed that it was important to move forward in a cooperative effort with IOSHA and to avoid the costs and expenses of further litigation." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Can I Be Required to Mediate, Arbitrate or Litigate a California Construction Dispute in Some Other State?

September 19, 2022 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
It is not uncommon in the construction industry for an out-of-state general contractor to include a provision in a subcontract requiring a California subcontractor to resolve disputes outside the state of California, even though the work is to be performed within California. Fortunately, most California subcontractors are immune from this tactic. California law generally prohibits clauses requiring subcontractors to travel outside California to resolve construction disputes. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.42, [CCP 410.42 Link] renders “void and unenforceable,” any provision in a contract that “purports to require any dispute to be litigated, arbitrated, or otherwise determined outside this state,” so long as the contract is “between the contractor and a subcontractor with principal offices in the state, for the construction of a public or private work of improvement in this state.” Similarly, this law voids any similar contractual term that might prevent the California subcontractor from commencing an action, obtaining a judgment, or resolving its dispute in the courts of California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.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

Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

November 21, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., the Court of Appeals for Ohio’s Eighth District reversed the lower court, finding that money paid by the insured into an abatement fund was “damages” as that undefined term was used in the policyholder’s insurance policies. 2022-Ohio-3031, ¶ 1. Sherwin-Williams is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to narrow the meaning of undefined terms in their insurance policies. The dispute in Sherwin-Williams focused on coverage for $400 million that the policyholder and other defendants were ordered to pay into an abatement fund to be used by California cities and counties to mitigate the hazards caused by lead paint in homes. Id. ¶ 1. Although the underlying litigation proceeded in California, Ohio law governed coverage, which raised issues of first impression in Ohio. Id. Among other things, the insurers argued that the money paid into the abatement fund did not qualify as “damages” under the policies. Id. ¶ 57. The insured argued that, because the insurers did not define “damages” in the policies, the term had to be given its ordinary meaning. Id. ¶ 56. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Best Lawyers® Recognizes 49 White and Williams Attorneys

September 16, 2024 — White and Williams LLP
Thirty-eight White and Williams lawyers were recognized in Best Lawyers in America® 2025. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services. In addition, eleven lawyers were recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. The firm is also pleased to announce Best Lawyers® has recognized three attorneys as "Lawyer of the Year” including: Chuck Eppolito, Litigation - Health Care, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense; William D. Kennedy, Litigation – Insurance, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on complex claims of injury and damage arising in both the professional and general liability contexts; and, Michael O. Kassak, Litigation – Insurance, Cherry Hill, who focuses his practice on large complex commercial matters including insurance coverage and healthcare disputes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES