CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

March 01, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Miller Act applies to the “construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the Federal Government.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3131. A recent opinion out of the Northern District of Oklahoma sheds light on what the Miller Act means regarding its application to any public work of the Federal Government. See U.S. v. Bronze Oak, LLC, 2017 WL 190099 (N.D.Ok. 2017). If the project is not a public works project of the Federal Government, the Miller Act does not apply. In this case, the Department of Transportation entered into an agreement with the Cherokee Nation where the Department would provide lump sum funding and the Nation would use the money to fund transportation projects. Based on the federal funding, the Nation issued a bid for a transportation project in Mayes County, Oklahoma and the project was awarded to a prime contractor. The prime contractor provided a payment bond that identified the United States as the obligee (as a Miller Act payment is required to do) and stated that it was issued per the Miller Act. Thereafter, the Nation and Mayes County, Oklahoma entered into a Memorandum of Understanding where the County would assume responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the project and the Nation would pay the County an agreed amount upon the completion of the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

August 03, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. 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

---

Digitalizing the Construction Site – Interview with Tenderfield’s Jason Kamha

August 30, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Here’s my interview with Jason Kamha, Director at Tenderfield, an Australian construction software company. Can you say a few words about yourself and your company? Tenderfield is based in Sydney, Australia and was established in 2014. We provide a software-as-a-service (SAAS) platform that enables construction firms to collaborate on large construction projects throughout the tendering and project management phases. A bit about myself, I have been working in the construction management field for over 10 years as an Estimator and a Contracts Administrator. I have always been interested in how technology can improve productivity and collaboration in construction. I worked on large projects and witnessed first-hand what can happen when information and people are disconnected. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

---

Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

October 01, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Remember when you discovered that the tooth fairy wasn’t real? It was kind of a bummer on one hand learning that it wasn’t a fairy that magically appeared to swap your tooth for cold hard cash, but rather your mom or, visual horrors, dad. At the same time, it was, to your nearly-halfway-to-a-decade-on-this-planet-wizened-six-year-old mind, confirmation of what you had a sneaking suspicion was the case in any event. And, so it is with the next case. Lease-Leasebacks In California, most public school construction projects are built using the traditional design-bid-build project delivery method in which a design professional designs the project, the project is put out for competitive bid and the selected contractor builds the project. But not all school construction projects are built this way. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

---

10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2022 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2022

September 20, 2021 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Three Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2022.

Congratulations to:
• Bruce Cleeland – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Peter Dubrawski – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Denis Moriarty – Insurance law

Seven Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2022.

Congratulations to:
• Courtney Arbucci – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Frances Brower – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Kyle DiNicola – Transportation Law
• Arezoo Jamshidi – Appellate Practice
• Jonna Lothyan – Appellate Practice
• Kristian Moriarty – Transportation Law
• Bethsaida Obra-White – Construction Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

October 28, 2024 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
If a property owner claims there is a construction defect, that not only brings the project’s integrity into question but also your business’s reputation. So, how can you take steps to prevent these claims from causing such damage? Here are three things to know before beginning a project to effectively protect it and manage construction defect claims. 1. Documentation is key California and Los Angeles County require certain permits and documents in order for a construction project to move forward. Los Angeles County will also conduct plan checks to ensure everything is up to code. Detailed documentation will be important while making your plans. However, keeping notes throughout every step of the project will also be essential. Documenting all aspects of the project helps you:

• Stay updated and aware of the project’s progress
• Proactively catch and handle issues that could result in disputes
• Create a record of evidence that can help manage defect claims

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

---

Endorsements Do Not Exclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Claim

August 30, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment, attempting to bar coverage under two endorsements for a wrongful death suit, was denied. Essex Ins. Co. v. FD Event Co., LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124400 (C.D. Calif. July 25, 2017). FD Event owned an amusement attraction known as Free Drop, which was operated at county fairs and festivals. Participants paid an admission fee to FD Event in order to jump from a scaffold structure onto an inflatable airbag below. FD Event had a policy with Essex. When securing the policy, FD Event understood that there was no coverage for amusement devices, inflatables, rides or animals. 28th Event, who ran the San Bernardino County Fair, was an additional insured on the policy. 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

---

Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

October 21, 2019 — Timothy Davis & Willliam Johnston - White and Williams LLP
On August 14, 2019, Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill authorizing, through C-PACE loans, the financing of clean energy, alternative energy and water conservation projects for eligible commercial properties in Philadelphia. Philadelphia City Council unanimously voted to approve the C-PACE program on June 20, 2019. The program will be administered by the Philadelphia Energy Authority. Third-party capital providers (not the Philadelphia Energy Authority) will originate C-PACE financings for qualified projects. C-PACE “assessments” will encumber the applicable property in a first lien position akin to a real estate tax. Documentation among the property owner, the City of Philadelphia, and the third party capital provider (identified in the ordinance as the “financial institution”) will provide, among other things, that the assessments will be payable and fully amortize over the term of the financing (i.e., 30 years) and will not be accelerated during its term. Importantly, before a C-PACE financing can be originated and the underlying property assessed, notice of the property owner’s desire to secure C-PACE financing under the program must be provided to the holder of a mortgage on the subject property and the holder of the mortgage must provide the property owner and the City of Philadelphia with its written consent. Without the mortgage lender’s consent, the C-PACE financing cannot be consummated. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Davis, White and Williams LLP and William Johnston, White and Williams LLP Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Johnston may be contacted at johnstonw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---