Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

March 06, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After a jury awarded damages related to the insurer's delayed payment under the claim and the insurer's post trial motions to set aside the verdict were denied, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. US General, LLC v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34066 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022). Crossroads American Baptist Church submitted a claim to GuideOne for hailstorm damage. Crossroads hired US General as the general contractor to perform the repairs and later assigned its interest in the insurance policy to US General. Numerous disputes arose between Crossroads and GuideOne regarding the cost of the repairs. There were delayed payments and portions of the repairs were never paid for. The delayed payments meant GuideOne's ability to begin making the repairs was hindered because it was more expensive to start and stop a project. 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

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

September 10, 2014 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract. In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

August 30, 2013 — James Ganion - Ulich & Terry, LLP
The following communication republished courtesy of James Ganion, Ulich & Terry, LLP Dear Builders, Colleagues, and Interested Parties: I attach for your review a copy of this week’s opinion of the California Court of Appeal in our case of Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield. This opinion represents a significant change to the right of California builders to repair homes under SB800, California’s Right to Repair Act. In a nutshell, the Court determined that SB800 was not intended to replace prior applicable law, but merely be supplemental to prior law. Thus, a homeowner, or in this case the homeowner’s insurer, can pick and choose among SB800 and prior law, or even allege both in the alternative. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal reversed the holding of the trial court which had held, as so many trial courts have since 2003, that SB800 was intended to be the new exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. While we of course take issue with most of what the Court of Appeal has to say, the real life net effect is that SB800 is now optional to the homeowner, meaning the “right” to repair now lies in the hands of the homeowner who can elect to simply bypass that law and proceed with the filing of a lawsuit under prior law. Hardly what any of us believe the legislature intended. ULICH & TERRY LLP as counsel for Brookfield in this case will be filing a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal by September 6, 2013. Anyone interested in supporting the petition may file a letter with the Court of Appeal, preferably by September 13, 2013. Thereafter, assuming the Court of Appeal does not grant rehearing, we will be filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. Our firm, as appellate counsel, has established a website libertymutualvbrookfieldcrystalcove.com and through it will be providing information regarding the case, including copies of pleadings, orders, deadlines, and information on how to provide support for this case, which is of interest to the home building industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Ganion
James Ganion can be contacted at jganion@ut-law.com

Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

March 22, 2018 — Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & Insights
In Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the Privette doctrine. Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death. Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Read Before You Sign: Claim Waivers in Project Documents

July 06, 2020 — William E. Underwood - ConsensusDocs
Not all claim waivers are appropriately titled “Waiver of Claims.” In fact, claim waivers can be found “hiding” without any advertisement or fanfare in a number of project documents, including change orders and applications for payment. So although getting work quickly approved and paid for is important, taking time to read the specific language in your project documents is just as important. Failure to pay close attention to this language could result in the waiver of key, unresolved project claims. Further, and although it should go without saying, it is also just as important to read all of the terms of your contract. Important waiver language might not exist on the face of form project documents, but rather might be contained in the general and/or supplemental conditions of your contract and automatically incorporated into your form project documents. And these types of incorporated waivers can be just as enforceable. So it is critically important to understand what you are signing and the implications it might have on future claims. This article will explore some of the common types of claim waivers that can be found in project documents so that you are better positioned to avoid inadvertently waiving claims in the future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Pennsylvania firm Bedwell Co. “has sued the Camden County Improvement Authority, saying it is owed $4.6 million for construction of [the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University]” in Camden, New Jersey, according to the Courier-Post. The Bedwell Co. alleges that its expenses exceeded fifty million, “but that it has been paid only $46 million.” The lawsuit states, as quoted by the Courier-Post, “From its inception, the project was plagued by delays due to defects in the design document and other circumstances that were beyond Bedwell’s control.” Furthermore, there were “an abnormally large quantity of design changes, schedule disputes, schedule disruptions and work-activity interference.” “Representatives of the CCIA and HDR could not be reached for comment Wednesday,” according to the Courier-Post. “Bedwell declined to comment on the allegations in the suit.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

August 24, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve been trying to stay focused here at the California Construction Law Blog. But it’s been hard. This past week, a couple of new developments took place at the federal level on infrastructure, although if you blinked, you may have missed it. Executive Order on Environmental Permitting This past Tuesday, at a press conference quickly overshadowed by the President’s comments about the tragic events that took place in Charlottesville, President Trump announced that he had signed a new executive order aimed at streamlining the environmental permitting process for federally-funded projects. 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

New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

May 16, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
NL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES