CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

March 04, 2019 — Craig O’Neill & Laura Rossi - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach. Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018) Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

June 06, 2018 — Scott Judy & Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report on the fatal collapse in March of a pedestrian bridge at Florida International University in Sweetwater focuses attention on the widely discussed pre-collapse cracking in the main span. The report also confirms accounts about what the construction crew working on the bridge was doing before the structure fell. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR and Richard Korman, ENR Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

August 21, 2023 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Architects and Engineers are sometimes pleasantly surprised to find out that they, also, can terminate those crazy, hard to deal with Owners—at least, if the Owners fail to make payments as required. You can also terminate for Owner delays to the work, or where you think the contractor should be fired but the Owner disagrees. Again, the standard 7 days written notice is required. (See B101 §9.4). Do you have to walk off the job if they are not paying you? No—you could exercise the smaller remedy of suspending services (with 7 days written notice) until payments are caught up or the contract performance is corrected by the Owner. (See B101 §9.1). Suspension rather than outright termination is a softer approach when working with an owner you do not want to burn (too many) bridges with. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

The Problem with One Year Warranties

June 10, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Contractors often ask if they should include a one year warranty in their subcontracts. I tell them that they can, but it may be more effective to include a one-year correction period. If a contractor does include a warranty in the contract, it may actually extend the time in which a contractor may be sued. I recommend instead a Correction Period. Typical Construction Warranties Form construction contracts, like the AIA forms, often times contain warranty language. The AIA A201, General Conditions, contains a warranty section that covers materials, but it does not address how long the work is warranted: “3.5 WARRANTY The Contractor warrants to the Owner and Architect that materials and equipment furnished under the Contract will be of good quality and new unless the Contract Documents require or permit otherwise. The Contractor further warrants that the Work will conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents and will be free from defects, except for those inherent in the quality of the Work the Contract Documents require or permit.” Instead, the AIA A201, section 13.7, limits the time by which claims must be brought to 10 years or the applicable statute of limitations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

August 11, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

The City of Seattle has one of the most stringent energy codes in the nation. Based upon the Washington State Energy Code (which has been embroiled in litigation over its high standards), the code demands a lot from commercial developers. But, does it prevent developers from saving Seattle?s classic and old buildings? Perhaps.



The general compliance procedure requires buildings to be examined during the permitting process. This means that buildings are examined before they begin operating. The procedure is not malleable and is applicable to all buildings, old and new, big and small.



The downside of this procedure is that it eliminates awarding compliance to those buildings exhibiting a number of passive features, such as siting, thermal mass, and renewable energy production. This problem has prevented a number of interesting and architecturally pleasing existing building retrofits from getting off the ground. The cost of complying with the current system can be 20% more, and it might prevent builders from preserving a building?s historical integrity.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Independent Contractor v. Employee. The “ABC Test” Does Not Include a Threshold Hiring Entity Test

October 03, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 2018, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court overturned nearly thirty years of jurisprudence governing the manner in which workers are classified as employees or independent contractors. The Dynamex decision replaced the “Borello test,” derived from a case of the same name, S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (1989), in which the California Supreme Court at the time set forth a variety of factors to be considered when determining whether a worker was an employee or independent contractor. The Dynamex decision replaced with the “Borello test” with the “ABC test.” Under the ABC test, a worker can be deemed an independent contractor if three conditions are met:

1. The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
2. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
3. The worker is customarily engaged in an independent established trade, occupation, or business

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

OSHA/VOSH Roundup

August 31, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. 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

---

Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim

October 25, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Judge Ezra, formerly on the bench in Hawaii, dismissed a COVID-19 claim pursued by a Texas policy holder. Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147276 (W.D. Texas Aug. 13, 2020). Local and state officials in Texas issued shutdown orders in March 2020 due to the spread of the cornavirus. All non-essential businesses, including the insureds' barbershop businesses, were ordered closed from April 2, 2020 until April 30, 2020. The insureds submitted a claim for business interruption and civil authority coverage to their carrier, State Farm. The claim was denied based on the policy's exclusion for loss caused by enforcement of ordinance or law, virus, and consequential losses. For Civil Authority coverage, State Farm contended the policy required that there by physical damage within one mile of the described property and that the damage be the result of a Covered Cause of Loss, which, State Farm asserted, a virus was not. The insureds sued and State Farm moved to dismiss. The court noted cases in which courts had found physical loss even without tangible destruction to the covered property. Yet, the court found that the line of cases requiring tangible injury to property were more persuasive. Therefore, the court found that the insureds failed to plead a direct physical loss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---