Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

October 02, 2015 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
This past month, the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, in James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (August 27, 2015), handed down a decision in a construction contract battle that has raged since 2007. And, once again, the winner is . . . in the words of Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch who authored the opinion . . . . “no prevailing party in [the] case” and hence “no prevailing party attorney’s fees [ ] awarded.” Background In Harris, subcontractor James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) sued general contractor West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) for extra work performed on a school construction project in Stockton, California. Among its claims, Harris asserted that West Bay was liable under California’s prompt payment statutes for failure to timely pay Harris. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

Conversations with My Younger Self: 5 Things I Wish I Knew Then

July 24, 2023 — Steve Swart - The Dispute Resolver
I remember the morning I became a construction law attorney. It was on my birthday several years ago when a partner called me into his office and asked me to review the A107 contract form for a large firm client. The assignment gave me a new language to speak and contract provisions that I came slowly to understand. I quickly moved into construction litigation and would soon learn that a "fragnet" was not the newest social media app but an important part of a delay claim. I read Spearin's biography and learned how to assess recoverable damages for different claims—costs to repair, replacement and betterment, increased financing/carrying costs, and the like. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get to where I am now. Echoing Rod Stewart’s sentiment—“I wish that I knew then, what I do now, when I was younger”—here are five tips I’d pass along to the younger me or anyone who is beginning their career as a construction lawyer: Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Swart, Williams Mullen
Mr. Swart may be contacted at sswart@williamsmullen.com

Notes from the Nordic Smart Building Convention

June 29, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The first Nordic Smart Building Convention took place in Helsinki on June 14 and 15, 2017. It was an inspiring event with great keynotes, tech talks, and an exhibition of smart building products and services. The event was organized by HUB13, a leading co-working space provider in Finland. I had met with the producer of the convention, Sjoerd Postema, when he was planning the event. He asked for my ideas on possible topics and presenters. Later, he invited me to host a workshop and a roundtable at the convention. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

August 03, 2020 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

The Creation of San Fransokyo

June 17, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Some of the most awe inspiring buildings and urban environments started off on paper and, these days, on computer screens. Think Babylon or even Pierre Charles L’Enfant’s Washington, D.C.. Most of those structures and cityscapes were designed for human habitation, but not all. Some were designed purely for our imaginations, like Minecraft, which those of you with young ones might be familiar with. Another more recent example though is Big Hero 6, about a science-whiz named Hiro (pronounced “hero,” get it) who journeys from boyhood to manhood and saves the world along the way with his robot pal Baymax. The movie is set in foreign-yet-familiar “San Fransokyo.” 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

Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

February 27, 2023 — Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff determining that it had no duty to defend or indemnify an insured in a personal injury action, in a case brought in the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff, an insurance provider (“the Insurer”), issued a General Commercial Policy (the “Policy”) to the Defendant, a commercial property owner (the “Property Owner”). In the underlying action, a former employee (the “Employee”) of a concrete vendor sued the Property Owner, and others, in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, for an injury that occurred on the street in front of the Property Owner’s premises during the course of repairs of sewer pipes that serviced the Property Owner’s premises. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com

Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

February 22, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you have read prior articles (see here and here as an example), then you know that when it comes to first-party property insurance policies, an insured must comply with post-loss obligations in the policy. Failure to comply with a post-loss obligation gives the insurer the argument that the insured materially breached the policy and, therefore, forfeited rights to coverage. Naturally, this is avoidable by ensuring post-loss obligations are complied with, ideally under the guidance of counsel and qualified public adjusters to ensure your rights are being preserved and maximized.

[W]hen an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horne, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D201b (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) quoting American Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So.3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

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

OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued $400,000 in fines to two contactors who were involved with the collapse of a building in Philadelphia. Six people died and 14 more were injured in an adjacent building. OSHA concluded that the two firms, Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting, violated workplace safety regulations 12 times in their demolition of the building. According to OSHA, Campbell Construction removed structural supports and portions of the lower floors of the building while upper stories were still being demolished. Both firms failed to provide its workers with fall protection equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES