Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

January 22, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Issues of fact surrounding the applicability of various exclusions prevented the insurer from securing summary judgment on claims for water damage. Babai v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175336 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 13, 2013). The insured noticed water damage to various areas of her home during remodeling. Allstate denied the claim because the loss was "not sudden and accidental," but rather progressive. Allstate cited the policy provision for "wear and tear, aging, . . . deterioration," etc., to exclude coverage. Plaintiff filed suit and Allstate moved for summary judgment. First, Allstate argued that construction defects were excluded from coverage based upon the exclusion for "latent defects." "Latent defects" were those that would not be discovered by a reasonable person. There was no evidence that the water damage was readily discoverable, so Allstate's argument failed. 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

Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court. The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007. Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.” Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000. Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.” In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty. Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.” However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession. The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

October 30, 2023 — Jonathan Keller & Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
Half the year spent in bone-aching cold. Soils frozen hard as concrete. Mountains of snow. A seemingly unending flow of machinery, workforce and earthen material to and from the site. A temporary city to house thousands of workers for nearly a decade. Wildfires encroaching dangerously close. Working under the ever-watchful eyes of regulators, stakeholders and environmentalists. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Keller, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Keller may be contacted at kellerj@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

November 27, 2023 — Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Timely notice is an important first step in a successful insurance recovery. But insurance policies are not always straightforward in identifying how, when, and to whom notice must be provided. Some states may also impose additional procedural hurdles, including requiring policyholders to contact their insurers before filing suit (the idea behind this requirement is that it may avoid litigation). Failing to comply with pre-suit requirements can hurt the policyholder’s recovery, as illustrated in a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas. In NewcrestImage Holdings, LLC v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-039-BR (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023), the court considered whether NewcrestImage had forfeited its right to recover attorneys’ fees by failing to give Travelers pre-suit notice. NewcrestImage had filed suit against Travelers to obtain coverage for damage to its hotel property arising out of Winter Storm Uri. In its answer, Travelers asserted that NewcrestImage failed to provide the insurer with pre-suit notice as required under the Texas Insurance Code, and that if NewcrestImage successfully proved it was entitled to coverage, NewcrestImage’s failure to provide pre-suit notice precluded it from recovering attorneys’ fees. Travelers later moved to strike the claim for attorneys’ fees on that basis. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

May 10, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, the Virginia General Assembly has finished its yearly run through the legislative process and this year there are a few highlights for those of us in the construction industry. It is always interesting to see what issues are the big ones that get a lot of attention. This year the changes impacted public procurement, VOSH fines, and employment of unlicensed individuals on a job site. These changes to the various statutes that impact the day to day operation of the construction industry in Virginia will go into effect on July 1, 2017. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

October 04, 2021 — Jatin Patel - Newmeyer Dillion
It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer. In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM. PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jatin Patel, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Patel may be contacted at jatin.patel@ndlf.com

Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

November 30, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Tidwell Enterprises v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (No. C078665, filed 11/29/16), a California appeals court held that that even though a house fire occurred after the policy period, there was nonetheless a possibility of coverage because the fire might have been the result of ongoing damage to the wood in the chimney chase during the policy period, due to the exposure of that wood to excessive heat from the chimney every time a fire was burned in the fireplace. 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

Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Paradigm Development and Construction LLC has sued Bristol Township, Pennsylvania over the allegation that town building officials colluded with their clients to issue building code violations after Paradigm prepared to sue the clients. John and Patricia Conard hired Paradigm to construct an addition to their home. During the process, the work went through nine inspections before Paradigm stopped work over a payment dispute. Some months later, Bristol Township issued a notice that Paradigm had 37 violations of the building code. Paradigm alleges that the source was a set of photographs provided by the Conards to the building officials. The lawsuit states that Paradigm “was not notified of any construction deficiencies at the Conard property, and was not provided with an opportunity to discuss, defend or refute the allegations of the Municipal Defendants that Plaintiff has violated the Bristol Building code.” The violation notice was withdrawn a few months later. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES