CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

April 13, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Although we live in a politically-divided nation, there is one issue on which there seems widespread agreement: our country requires a massive upgrade to its infrastructure. Rundown airports, crumbling highways, obsolete ports, and dangerous bridges are now endemic across the United States. By contrast, Asian airports and elegant European bridges and rails show that our country needs an upgrade, the cost of which will be enormous. President Trump promised to revitalize America’s aging roads, bridges, railways, and airports. He chose Wilbur Ross for Commerce Secretary and professor of Conservative Economics and Public Policy, Peter Navarro, to formulate an infrastructure plan. Navarro and Ross recommended that the government allocate $137 billion in tax credits for private investors who underwrite infrastructure projects. They estimate that over the next ten years, the credits could spur $1 trillion in investments. That is how much President Trump promised to spend on infrastructure, a key part of his job-creation plan. His plan involves building the infrastructure with private-money financing. Public Private Partnerships (“PPP”) are not a new concept and have been successful in Canada, Europe, and various U.S. states who have pioneered this method of procurement. Federal tax credits have been used to spur private investment in housing, resulting in tens of thousands of low-income housing developments over the years. The credits are sold to private entities such as banks and equity firms that invest anywhere from $.70 to $1.10 in housing developments for every dollar they receive in credits, a ratio that fluctuates with economic conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

---

Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program

March 15, 2021 — Hugh D. Hughes, Eric M. Clarkson & Mollie H. Levy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The risk of bodily injury lawsuits is an unavoidable reality for property owners and facilities managers (“FMs”) of large commercial sites such as universities, malls, office buildings, or stadiums. Any person who steps foot on the property is a potential plaintiff, including students, tenants, customers, contractors, and vendors. Insurance mitigates these risks, but a property owner’s or FM’s risk transfer strategy should include more than their own suite of general liability and other third-party policies. Ensuring additional insured status on a vendor’s or contractor’s policy is also essential to a comprehensive risk transfer strategy. In a functional risk transfer program, a vendor’s or contractor’s general liability insurer should defend and indemnify property owners or FMs as additional insureds (“AIs”) for liability for bodily injury caused, in whole or in part, by the vendor’s or contractor’s operations. When this works as intended, it effectively transfers costs associated with such a lawsuit from the owner or FM to the vendor’s or contractor’s insurer. It also increases the insurance limits available for a loss. Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Mollie H. Levy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Hughes may be contacted at HHughes@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at MLevy@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

May 01, 2015 — CDJ STAFF
In just two weeks, the 22nd West Coast Casualty (WCC) Construction Defect Seminar returns to the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California. The annual event begins on Thursday, May 14th, with breakfast and registration starting at 7:30am. Panel discussions on various construction defect related topics begin at 8:30am and continue through the morning and afternoon, followed by a cocktail reception in the early evening. The following day includes break-out sessions with the event concluding in the afternoon. Attendees can enhance their seminar experience with the WCC Construction Defect Seminar Mobile App. The event schedule, speaker information, product information, sponsor details, and interactive floorplan can all be accessed through the app. Furthermore, registered attendees will have access to session presentations. The designated charity for this years’ event is the Wounded Warrior Project and there are several ways for attendees to support this honorable cause. In addition to the opportunity to purchase a “Buy A Banner” to hang in the seminar hall, there will be a traditional raffle for two American Themed quilts donated by Marianne Cutcher. Bert L. Howe and Associates, Inc. has also stepped up to support Wounded Warriors, and attendees will get the chance to help raise money for this cause in the following manner:

If you stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth at the seminar and try their “Sink A Putt For Charity” not only will you have the chance to win a $25 Best Buy gift card, but you’ll also have the opportunity to help raise funds for Wounded Warriors. For every hole-in-one made at their booth, BHA will also make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA strongly supports the goals and principles of Wounded Warriors, and is honored to assist the organization in fulfilling its mandate of assisting our returning military heroes who are in need.

Download an invitation and register for WCC Seminar... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

January 28, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed when a liability policy was triggered for ongoing property damage. The Court also declined to apply the multiple trigger theory. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. John, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3313 (Pa. Dec. 15, 2014). In 2002, Appellants, co-owners of a dairy farm, expanded the size of their dairy herd and milking facility. Appellants hired LPH Plumbing to install a new plumbing system, which would include a wastewater drainage system and a separate freshwater drinking system. LPH Plumbing subcontracted with Stoltzfus Welding to weld metal pipes leading to a holding tank for the new freshwater drinking system. Construction was completed in July 2003. Unknown to Appellants, the plumbing system was defective when dairy operations began. PVC piping for the wastewater was cracked, allowing "gray water" to escape. Further Stoltzfus failed to properly weld an intake pipe leading to a holding tank that formed a part of the freshwater drinking system for the dairy herd. Consequently, Appellants' herd was exposed to contaminated drinking water shortly after dairy operations began in July 2003. 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

---

Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects

September 17, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The California Court of Appeals has allowed the second lowest bidders on public construction projects to sue the lowest bidder where it appears that the lowest bidder was only the lowest because it paid its employees less than the established prevailing wage. This is a novel theory for recovery, but may provide for an opportunity to challenge improperly low bids. Background Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt outbid two asphalt companies on 23 public works projects, totaling nearly $15 million. The two asphalt companies sued American Asphalt alleging that they were the second lowest bidder all 23 construction projects and they would have been the lowest had American Asphalt paid its employees the required prevailing wage. Importantly, the municipality awarding the contracts was not sued by the second lowest bidders. Instead, the second lowest bidders alleged that American Asphalt intentionally interfered with a business expectancy and sought damages from American Asphalt, specifically the profit that they lost by not performing these contracts. 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

---

California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Glen C. Hansen, writing on Abbott & Kinderman’s Land Use Law Blog looks at several cases pending before the California Supreme Court which ask if a developer can insist on arbitration of construction defect claims, based on provision in the CC&Rs. Currently, there is a split of opinions in the California appeals courts on the issue.

Four of the cases are in California’s Fourth Appellate District. In the earliest case, Villa Milano Homeowners Association v. Il Davorge, from 2000, the court concluded that the arbitration clause was sufficient to require that construction defect claims undergo arbitration. However, the Fourth Appellate District Court concluded in three later cases that the arbitration clauses did not allow the developer to compel arbitration. In two cases, argued in 2008 and 2010, the court concluded that to do otherwise would deprive the homeowners of their right to a jury trial. In the most recent case, Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association v. Nobel Court Development, the court decided that the CC&Rs did not create contractual rights for the developer.

The Second Appellate District Court came to a similar decision in Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Association v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc. In their decision, the court noted that CC&Rs could be enforced by homeowners and homeowners associations, but not developers.

Read the full story…

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

---

Texas contractual liability exclusion

May 18, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. C-10-256 (S.D. Tex. April 28, 2011), insured Ewing was the general contractor for an athletic facility constructed for a school district. The school district sued Ewing alleging defective construction of the project. The underlying complaint included contract and negligence causes of action, and sought damages for the repair of the damages and loss of the use of the project. The complaint did not allege damage to any property other than the project itself. Ewing tendered its defense to its CGL insurer Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense and Ewing filed suit against Amerisure. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for Amerisure. Applying Texas law, the court held that all of the damages fell within the “contractual liability” exclusion precluding any duty to defend or indemnify.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

October 27, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Most states have laws known as “prompt payment” statutes which govern the timing of payments on public works projects[i] from project owners to general contractors, and from general contractors to subcontractors.[ii] The purpose of these statutes is to ensure that contractors and subcontractors who may have less leverage than the project owners and prime contractors, respectively, are paid for their work on a timely basis. Prompt Payment Act cases are rare, and, since many of the prompt payment statutes are founded on the same principles, when we come across a Prompt Payment Act case, it is “blog worthy.” This dispute arose from the construction of the Exposition Light Rail Line Project connecting downtown Los Angeles with Culver City on which FCI/Fluor/Parsons (“FFP”) was the prime contractor, and Bloise Construction, Inc. (“Bloise”) was the excavation subcontractor to FFP. Under the prime contract, Expo,[iii] the owner, was permitted to withhold ten percent of the payments owed to FFP, and FFP, pursuant to its subcontract with Bloise, was entitled to also withhold ten percent of the payments to Bloise as retention. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

---