Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Using the Prevention Doctrine

April 22, 2019 — David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
The following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it. One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Erhart may be contacted at derhart@grsm.com

Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

September 16, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
(August 15, 2024) - Best Lawyers has selected 171 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 47 offices for its 31st edition of The Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: San Diego Partner Gary K. Brucker Jr. (Litigation - Real Estate); Weirton Managing Partner Michelle L. Gorman (Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants); Roanoke Partner Paul C. Kuhnel (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); and Los Angeles Co-Administrative Partner Steven R. Lewis (Product Liability Litigation - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition! You can see the full list of attorneys named to Best Lawyers' Ones to Watch in America here. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

June 22, 2016 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman Construction Law Blog
On May 3, 2016, the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed a jury’s verdict in favor of a condominium HOA against a structural engineer for $1,149,332 in damages.[1] The project in question was The Pointe, an upscale condominium building in Westport, Washington. The developer was Dodson-Duus, LLC. The architect was Elkins Architects (“Elkins”). The structural engineer was Engineers Northwest, Inc. (“ENW”). ENW contracted with Elkins for the structural engineering work. Birds flying past 3 construction cranesBoth the design and construction of the building suffered from defects. In particular, the lateral force resistance system was insufficient to withstand a large seismic event. The defects included improperly nailed shear walls, weak connections between shear walls and floor joists, improperly-sized floor sheathing, a weak second-floor diaphragm, and omitted hold-downs connecting shear walls to a steel beam. The use of gypsum sheathing also created a risk of corrosion to the building’s steel structure. Evidence tied each of these defects to some aspect of ENW’s structural calculations and designs. Evidence also tied omission of the hold-downs to the contractor’s construction decisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

October 02, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
“[I]t ain’t how hard you hit; it’s about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done. . . .” – Sylvester Stalone as Rocky Balboa in Rocky Balboa. Ding, ding. The Little Case That Roared Two years ago we wrote about a case that caused an uproar in the homebuilding industry – Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (2013) – in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held for the first time that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims involving “actual,” as opposed to “economic,” damages in new residential housing. It was a blow to the homebuilding industry who back in 2002, following a wave of construction defect lawsuits involving new residential housing, lobbied the State Legislature for the Right to Repair Act which gave homebuilders an opportunity to repair defects before being sued in court. 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

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The studio for AMC’s Walking Dead television show “is constructing a 15-foot-high wall around a neighborhood in the small town of Senoia,” located outside of Atlanta, Georgia to create a set for new episodes, the Sacramento Bee reported. The town’s mayor, Larry Owens, stated that the city council approved plans for the wall, which will enclose “about four brownstone town homes plus about a half-dozen additional residences.” About 30 people currently live in the area affected. The show will use the area “as a safe haven from zombies,” which the show refers to as “walkers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations

May 08, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you want a case that goes into history of the federal Miller Act, check out the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in U.S. ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 2023 WL 3083440 (4th Cir. 2023). While I am not going to delve into this history, it’s a worthwhile read. It is also a worthwhile read for two other points. First, it discusses what constitutes “labor” under the Miller Act. Second, it discusses doctrine of estoppel to prevent a surety from raising the statute of limitations to bar a Miller Act payment bond claim, which is a doctrine you do NOT want to rely on, as this case reinforces. Both of these points applicable to Miller Act claims are discussed below. This case dealt with a prime contractor renovating staircases that was terminated by the federal government. The prime contractor hired a professional engineer as its subcontractor to serve as its project manager and supervise labor on the project. The engineer/subcontractor also had “logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself.” Dickson, supra, at *1. 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

Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES