Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

December 09, 2019 — Anthony Hatzilabrou - Traub Lieberman
Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Texas Supreme Court ruled on Ewing v. Amerisure Ins. Co. on January 17th, a “much-anticipated” decision according to Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. “Construction projects are always the subject of contracts among owners and contractors” Salisbury stated in his article on Lexology.com. The recent decision demonstrates that “an exclusion in the standard Comprehensive Liability Insurance policy that precludes coverage for ‘liabilities assumed under contract’” does not usually “apply to construction contracts.” In 2008, Ewing Construction Company built a set of tennis courts in Corpus Christi, according to Salisbury. “Shortly after construction was complete, according to the school district, ‘the courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking, rendering them unusable for their intended purpose of hosting competitive tennis events.’” After the school district sued Ewing in state court, Ewing “turned the suit over to Amerisure, its CGL insurer, seeking a defense and indemnity. Amerisure denied all coverage, citing the contractual liability exclusion in its policy. This inspired Ewing to sue the carrier in federal district court for the Southern District of Texas.” After several rulings and appeals, the case eventually reached the Texas Supreme Court: “According to the Ewing court, the contract claims that Ewing failed to perform in a good and workmanlike manner ‘are substantively the same as its claims that Ewing negligently performed under the contract because they contain the same factual allegations and alleged misconduct.’ Failure to perform in a ‘good and workmanlike manner’ is functionally and substantively the same as performing negligently. ‘Accordingly,’ the Ewing court said, ‘we conclude that a general contractor who agrees to perform its construction work in a good and workmanlike manner, without more, does not enlarge its duty to exercise ordinary care in fulfilling its contract, thus it does not ‘assume liability’ for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

Read the court’s decision…

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

California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

April 15, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. B248622, filed 4/8/15), a California appeals court held that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones lacked the authority to promulgate California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183, which set out specific requirements for estimating replacement cost as part of any application or renewal for homeowners insurance. The regulation was promulgated in 2010 in response to complaints from homeowners who lost their homes in the wildfires in Southern California in 2003, 2007, and 2008, and who discovered that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because the insurers’ estimates of replacement value were too low when they purchased the insurance. 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

The Legal 500 U.S. 2024 Guide Names Peckar & Abramson a Top Tier Firm in Construction Law and Recognizes Nine Attorneys

July 15, 2024 — Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce The Legal 500 United States has once again ranked P&A as a Tier One firm in construction law. The publication also recognized nine P&A construction lawyers in its directory for their contributions in the United States:

Levi W. Barrett – Recommended Lawyers
Michael A. Branca – Leading Lawyers
Steven M. Charney – Recommended Lawyers
Gregory H. Chertoff – Recommended Lawyers
Adam P. Handfinger – Next Generation Partners
Timothy D. Matheny – Key Lawyers
Paul Monte – Leading Lawyers
Gerard J. Onorata – Key Lawyers
Robert S. Peckar – Hall of Fame

P&A is proud to be recognized each year by several legal ratings services, including our Tier 1 ratings by Chambers both nationally and in a number of jurisdictions around the country. Steven M. Charney commented, “Receiving this prestigious recognition by Legal 500 signifies the exceptional caliber of our team, their unwavering commitment to delivering unparalleled legal solutions, and their ability to navigate complex challenges. We are dedicated to providing our clients with the highest level of service and are proud to be recognized as leaders in the field of construction law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

May 04, 2020 — Tara C. Dudum - Newmeyer Dillion
“We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent. To say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.” -Chief Justice and Chair of the California Judicial Council, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Seeking to sustain essential court services while balancing weighty considerations, including litigants’ due process rights, access to justice, and stringent health and safety orders, the California Judicial Council has adopted Emergency Rules in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). While many of the Emergency Rules focus on criminal and juvenile dependency matters, this update highlights the Emergency Rules immediately impacting civil litigation in California state courts. The following Emergency Rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency or the rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council: Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Civil Actions Effective April 6, 2020, the statutes of limitation (the time period in which to bring a claim) for all civil causes of action is tolled until such time as the rule is no longer in effect. The impact of this rule is that it provides plaintiffs with more time to bring claims and extends the time period that defendants may face legal action for alleged violations of the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tara C. Dudum, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Dudum may be contacted at tara.dudum@ndlf.com

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

No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

February 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Even though it’s been revealed that “faulty data” was used to reject many New Jersey recovery grants for victims of Superstorm Sandy, the state has announced that it’s too late to appeal, according to The Wall Street Journal. “The applicants were informed by letter that they weren't eligible,” state officials told The Wall Street Journal, “and it should have been clear that they needed to appeal last year, so the application process won't be reopened.” The majority of the rejected applicants that did appeal within the open period were found to be eligible for the grant: “Nearly 80% of people who appealed their rejections ended up winning their cases, according to data released by the Fair Share Housing Center, a public-interest law firm critical of the Christie administration. And of the 8,007 applicants rejected from both programs, 5,583 didn't appeal, or 70%, according to Fair Share Housing Center's analysis.” U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell called for “an independent monitor” to be “appointed to oversee the state’s storm spending ‘to ensure there isn’t further mismanagement.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES