CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

August 29, 2018 — Nicholas Karkazis - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
To ensure that construction contractors and subcontractors receive timely progress and retention payments, the California Legislature enacted statutes that impose deadlines and penalties on owners and direct (general) contractors who delay payments. (Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 8800, 8802, 8812, 8814; Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, 10262.5; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5.) However, there is an exception to these deadlines and penalties on both private and public projects. The exception allows an owner or direct contractor to withhold payment1 when there is a good faith dispute between an owner and a direct contractor or between a direct contractor and a subcontractor. (Civ. Code, §§ 8800, subd. (b), 8802, subd. (b), 8812, subd. (c), 8814, subd. (c); Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, subds. (c), (e), 10262.5, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5, subd. (a).) But the term “good faith dispute” has been a source of confusion where direct contractors owe subcontractors retention payments, but want to withhold the payment because of a dispute.2 California appellate courts were split, with one court finding that any type of bona fide dispute justified withholding, and another finding that only disputes related to the payment itself justified withholding. (Compare Martin Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1401 [any bona fide dispute could justify withholding] with East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742 [disputes related to the payment itself may justify withholding].) In May 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified that for a direct contractor to withhold a retention payment on a private project, the good faith dispute must somehow relate to the payment itself. (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1097-1098.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas Karkazis, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Karkazis may be contacted at nkarkazis@grsm.com

---

Seventh Circuit Confirms Additional Insured's Coverage for Alleged Construction Defects

August 10, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit held that the underlying complaint alleged an occurrence by asserting that the painting subcontractor was negligent in causing damage to the building. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Decorating Serv., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12516 (7th Cir. July 13, 2017). McHugh Construction, the general contractor for construction of a 24 story condominium building in Chicago, retained National Decorating Service, Inc. as a subcontractor to perform all of the painting work. This meant National Decorating would paint the exterior of the building with a protective coating that was a waterproof sealant. After completion, the building's board of managers sued McHugh, National Decorating, and others for damages resulting from faulty workmanship. The third amended complaint alleged: (1) significant cracking of the exterior concrete walls, interior walls, and ceilings; (2) significant leakage through the exterior concrete walls, balconies, and windows; (3) defects to the common elements of the building; and (4) damage to the interior ceilings, floors, interior painting, drywall, and furniture in the units. 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

---

Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

April 15, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I questioned whether to even write this post. Because, of course, YOU would never find yourself hightailing it out of town with the California Contractor’s State License Board (“CSLB”) sniffing down your tail pipes. Then again, mistaken identities occur all the time. So, here’s what you need to know if the CSLB mistakes you for one of “those” contractors. What violations are subject to CSLB enforcement actions? The CSLB can take enforcement actions based on any one of numerous violations set forth under the California Business and Professions Code (“B&P Code”), including: 1. B&P Code §7107: Abandonment of a construction project or operation without legal excuse. 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

---

Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments

March 01, 2021 — Jonathan Cheatham - Construction Executive
While suing in court for payment on a construction project is nothing new, the very notion of non-payment tends evokes images of hard-working contractors and subcontractors, working with tight margins, owed payment for services rendered and materials. Fortunately, for general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry, there are better remedies for securing payment on a project before it becomes a bigger issue. Construction projects, especially large public ones, usually include a dizzying array of general contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors, sometimes numbering more than a hundred entities. The inter-connected groups of companies working toward the goal of project completion require competent construction management in order to stay on time and on budget for completion. One of the project owner’s key tools used to ensure the process runs smoothly is the use of payment bonds and surety bonds. Payment Bonds Payment bonds ensure that contractors and subcontractors get paid for work performed in accordance with contract conditions. Disputes can occur before, during and even after the completion of work. Injunctive lawsuits, which contemplate the stoppage of work, would be detrimental to completing a public or private construction project of substantial size. Rather than having such minor disputes derail the entire project, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a claim against the payment bond, which offers a solution designed to keep the issue separate from the project’s completion. The payment bond also allows the project owner to transfer risk. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Cheatham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

March 30, 2020 — Michael G. Platner, Solomon B. Zoberman, & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
Every passing day brings stark new reports of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and increasing numbers of cancelled conventions, concerts, and other major events. Both the hospitality and travel industry on the one hand, and organizations that are canceling events on the other, are scrambling to understand the legal consequences of these costly terminations. Cancellation fees can be breathtaking, and affected parties are quickly learning that there are no simple answers as to whether a disease outbreak of this scope and scale falls within force majeure (or Act of God) clauses that either do not explicitly list, or arguably may never have contemplated, circumstances of this type. Generally, force majeure clauses excuse parties’ performance under a contract when circumstances that are beyond their control arise and prevent them from fulfilling their obligations. The party electing to enforce its rights under the force majeure clause must show that the triggering event qualifies as a force majeure event, and that the event has rendered the party’s performance impossible or impracticable. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Michael G. Platner, Solomon B. Zoberman and Jane C. Luxton Mr. Platner may be contacted at Michael.Platner@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Zoberman may be contacted at Solomon.Zoberman@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

March 01, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In Stock Building Supply, Inc. v. Platte River Insurance Co.,[1] the Court of Appeals dealt with issues of judicial estoppel, bankruptcy, retroactive application of statutory lien amendments, and the full payment defense. The owner, Madison Retail-Suwanee, LLC (“Madison”) hired Cannon/Estapa General Contractors, Inc. (“Cannon”) to be the general contractor for the construction of a shopping center (“the Project”). Cannon subcontracted with Stock Building Supply (“Stock”) to supply labor, materials, and services for the Project. Cannon failed to complete the project and Madison had yet to pay Cannon the full contract price. In 2007, Stock timely filed a lien on the Project and obtained a judgment against Cannon for the amount due under the subcontract. Platte River Insurance Company (“Platte”), the surety, issued a bond to discharge Stock’s lien. Consequently, Stock pursued an action against Platte to collect the judgment in the amount of $93,865.27. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---

Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. 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

---