Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

April 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Taylor Morrison Home Corporation and two of its largest shareholders have created a joint venture “to acquire and develop the 195.5 acres of San Clemente coast known as Marblehead,” according to GlobeSt.com. The Scottsdale, Arizona-based developer is expected to begin construction on the 300 luxury home site in 2015. “Marblehead is a truly unique site and one of the last undeveloped tracts of coastal land in California,” said Sheryl Palmer, president and CEO of Taylor Morrison, as quoted by GlobeSt.com. “It presents a tremendous opportunity that will deepen our land inventory of exceptional sites and further our standard of building high-quality homes in premier locations across North America.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

April 11, 2018 — Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Last year, I wrote a post calling attention to stalled efforts in the Colorado legislature to pass meaningful construction defect reform. Shortly thereafter, the legislature got it done in the form of House Bill 17-1279. This bill creates an important pre-litigation notice-and-approval process whenever an HOA initiates a construction defect action in its own name or on behalf of two or more of its members. Before May 2017, the pre-litigation requirements that an HOA had to fulfill before bringing a construction defect claim under the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”) were generally minor. For example, while many declarations required majority approval from the community prior to initiation of claims, in practice, what the industry was seeing is that some HOAs were making it so that only a majority of the HOA Board had to approve bringing the claim, rather than the majority of interested unit owners. It was also common that, even where the majority of owners were involved, they were often voting in favor of filing a lawsuit or arbitration without fully understanding the risks and costs. This practice presented a risk to developers—it is easier to get approval from a small group than from a larger group, and it is easier to get approval when the voting owners do not fully appreciate the risks and costs inherent in filing a claim. Colorado House Bill 17-1279, which was signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper in May 2017 and is codified at C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, lessens these risks by amending the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) to add certain pre-litigation requirements. Section 38-33.3-303.5 applies any time an HOA institutes a construction defect action its own name on behalf of itself or two or more unit owners on matters affecting the common interest community. C.R.S. §§ 38-33.3-302(1)(d), -303.5(1)(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Trial preparations continue over the failure of a wall at a sewage treatment plant and the failure of the insurer to provide coverage. The Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant sued its insurer, American Alternative Insurance Corp., in March 2012 over insurance coverage. AAIC claimed that the wall failure, which released hundreds of thousands of gallons of sewage, was due to structural defects which preceded the policy. AAIC did pay more than $300,000 for covered losses, although officials claim that coverage should be a further $3.5 million. Additionally, the board is suing the contractor who constructed the wall. Here, the operators of the sewage plant are seeking $20 million. The wall was built as part of a $67 million improvement project between 2004 and 2006. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

Cumulative Impact Claims and Definition by Certain Boards

June 21, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What is a cumulative impact claim? This is commonly referred to as the unforeseeable ripple effect of changes, i.e., the death by a thousand cuts. Cumulative impact claims refer to a disruption on productivity based on the cumulative impact of changes and their impact on unchanged work. Cumulative impact claims are difficult claims to prove, particularly based on the causation standpoint (and argument they could be released based on change order language). If pursuing or considering a cumulative impact claim, you will need to work with a consultant(s) and lawyer that understand the dynamic of these claims to best maximize your arguments and recovery from a causation and damages standpoint. Cumulative impact damages are real. They occur. But they are not damages you can just throw out there or use loosely and expect to develop traction on compensation. Below is how cumulative impact claims are defined by certain Boards of Contract Appeals. The definitions are important. In Appeal of Centex Bateson Construction, Co., Inc., 9901 BCA P 30153, VABCA 4613 (VABCA 1998), the Board explained:

Direct impact, as the immediate and direct effect of a change on unchanged work, is considered foreseeable.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

November 08, 2021 — Craig H. O'Neill - White and Williams LLP
A contractor client of White and Williams recently found itself in a prickly situation. They had default terminated a subcontractor on a major commercial project and withheld payment to that subcontractor on an outstanding invoice as permitted under the terms of the subcontract until the project was completed. Clearly irate over being terminated, the subcontractor walked-off of the project with thousands of dollars’ worth of project materials and equipment that had been paid for by the owner. While on some projects this may amount to nothing more than an annoyance or inconvenience, in this case it was a significant problem because some of the wrongfully removed materials were custom manufactured overseas and not easily replaceable. The client therefore needed to take immediate action to retrieve the stolen materials so that the project would not be delayed. Specifically, it needed to file a replevin action against the subcontractor. A replevin action is a little known but powerful area of the law. In its simplest terms, replevin is a procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties concerned. The requirements of a replevin action differ by jurisdiction. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Rules of Civil Procedure devote an entire section to replevin actions and spell out in precise detail the steps that must be taken. While you should be sure to strictly comply with the rules in your jurisdiction, here are a few general points to keep in mind:

Where to File: A replevin action is typically commenced by filing a complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction. Generally speaking, it is best to file the action in the jurisdiction where the improperly seized materials are being held. If that location is unknown, you can also typically file the action in the jurisdiction where the project is located.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig H. O'Neill, White and Williams LLP
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"

September 12, 2022 — Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the July 5, 2022, case of Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Casualty Co., the United States District Court for Colorado addressed the issue of whether damage to defectively installed balconies is considered “property damage” under Colorado law, requiring payment by a commercial general liability policy. Facts of the Case The case stems from a construction project where a subcontractor improperly installed balconies on an apartment complex. The owner of the project secured commercial general liability (CGL) coverage through an OCIP insured by Houston Casualty Company (HHC). The OCIP insured the general contractor and subcontractors. The general contractor also purchased a subcontractor default insurance policy insured by Indian Harbor. All parties agreed that the subcontractor improperly installed portions of various balconies, including flashing, water-proof sealing, and water-resistant barriers, among other defects with the installation process. The parties also agreed that other portions of the balconies were properly installed. However, in order to repair the defects in the installations, every bit of each balcony had to be torn off and re-constructed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

April 02, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted, in part, the insured's motion for summary judgment by finding that matching roof tiles were required under the policy. Bertisen v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3907 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2024). The insureds sued Travelers for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. They alleged that their residence was damaged by a hailstorm and that Travelers breached their policy and acted in bad faith in the handling of the claim. The insureds demanded an appraisal to determine the "amount of loss" under the policy and an appraisal award was issued. Travelers then denied payment for all roof tiles that were contemplated by the appraisal award. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES