CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

June 08, 2020 — Christopher A. Henry - ConsensusDocs
Project “Daily Reports” are some of the most important, yet overlooked aspects of a construction project. These reports serve many beneficial roles such as holding parties accountable to their obligations, providing the basis for an as-built schedule, recording manpower, documenting site conditions, and recording any other important and relevant information that happened on the job site that day. Daily reports can also provide information to help with claims or disputes that may arise in the future, such as noting weather delays, providing backup for future delay claims, and providing information to dispute claims made against your company. Finally, daily reports also serve as a useful communication tool during the project and a source of real time information for parties that want to know how the work is commencing on a day to day basis. Because daily reports are the “Swiss army knife” of project documentation, it is extremely important that a contractor puts for its best effort when creating them. It is no secret that a construction project can become more chaotic as the schedule progresses. Unfortunately, when that is the case, the effort put into creating these reports drops off and sometimes the responsibility of creating such reports is thrown aside altogether. I can speak from experience. Prior to entering the practice of law, I was a project engineer for a general contractor in Atlanta. As an engineer in the field, one of my many responsibilities was to enter the daily reports. Based off this experience, below are some thoughts on how to prepare useful daily reports. 1. Check the contract. The contract you entered may set forth specific requirements for the daily reports, such as where to file them, the required format, and specific information that must be included. Complying with contractual requirements is necessary for a successful project. One word of caution for subcontractors, a subcontract will often incorporate the prime contract. If that is the case, be sure to check the prime contract for any specific language relating to daily reports. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher A. Henry, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Henry may be contacted at chenry@joneswalker.com

---

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

March 16, 2020 — Syed S. Ahmad & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A New York appellate court recently held that renewable bio-diesel fuel manufacturer BioEnergy Development Group LLC may pursue tens of millions of dollars in damages from its insurers under two all-risk insurance policies, including amounts in excess of the policy limits, where the insurers refused to pay claims in a timely manner. BioEnergy purchased two all-risk property policies from Lloyd’s to provide coverage for its manufacturing plant in Memphis, Tennessee. A fire destroyed the Memphis plant in March 2016, eliminating BioEnergy’s production capacity and sole source of revenue. BioEnergy made claims under the policies and sought to rebuild its plant. The insurers acknowledged coverage and eventually made approximately $8 million in interim payments, but the parties disagreed over the value of the total property damage claim, which BioEnergy contended was in excess of $24 million. The disputed claim was submitted to appraisal, which resulted in the insurers agreeing to pay the full business interruption limit of $15.1 million. The insurers filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit, however, seeking to limit BioEnergy’s recovery to the policy limits of $15.1 million. BioEnergy alleged that the insurers failed to make interim payments in a timely manner after the fire and, as a result, the company suffered increased losses because it could not rebuild without the insurance proceeds. BioEnergy sought actual and consequential damages, plus attorneys’ fees, arising from the delayed payments, including payment of its business interruption losses in excess of the policy limits. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

February 27, 2019 — Rick Clough - Bloomberg
General Electric Co. will reimburse the state of Massachusetts for funds used to develop the manufacturer’s future headquarters, a project that is now being scaled back under Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp. GE and the state will jointly sell the property in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood where the company will make its future home, according to an agreement revealed Thursday. GE still plans to move into the campus later this year -- as a tenant rather than owner -- but it’s scrapping plans to build an adjacent 12-story tower. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Clough, Bloomberg

---

Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Douglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship. The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

May 31, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As you may know, material prices have been climbing. And they continue to climb based on the volatility of the material market. On top of that, there are lead times in getting material due to supply chain and other related concerns. The question is, how are you addressing these risks? These are risks that need to be addressed in your contract. As it relates to climbing material prices, one consideration is a material escalation provision. The objective of this provision is to address the volatility of the material market in economic climates, such as today’s climate, where the price of material continues to climb. Locking down a material price today will be different than locking down the same price months from today. This volatility and risk impacts pricing and budgets. Naturally, an owner and contractor would like to be in a position to lock down supplier prices as soon as possible—both to secure pricing and to account for items with long lead times or that recent data forecasts a long lead time due to supply chain concerns. However, this is not always possible or practical and can depend on numerous issues such as when the owner contracts with the contractor, when the owner issues the notice to proceed (and permits are issued), final construction documents and revisions to the construction documents, the type of material, whether there is staging or storage available for the materials, and the current status including climitazation of the project. 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

---

Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

July 30, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for flood coverage was denied when the insurer refused to accept an adjuster's report submitted without a proof of loss. Jackson v. Fid. Nat'l Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66589 (E.D. La. May 21, 2015). Plaintiff's property was damaged by Hurricane Isaac. Defendant Fidelity provided flood coverage for the property through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). After plaintiff submitted a flood claim, she executed a proof of loss for $53,803.02. A second proof of loss for contents was submitted in the amount of $26,556.13. Fidelity paid both these claims. Thereafter, an adjuster's estimate of plaintiff's damages, totaling $284,332.91, was submitted to Fidelity. Plaintiff did not submit a supplemental proof of loss for this claim. Fidelity refused to pay the claim and plaintiff filed suit. 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

---

New Mexico Adopts Right to Repair Act

April 25, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
On April 7, 2023, New Mexico’s governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, signed into law New Mexico’s Right to Repair Act (Act), 2023 N.M. SB 50. The Act’s effective date is July 1, 2023. The Act applies to construction defects in dwellings, i.e., newly constructed single family housing units designed for residential use. The Act applies to not only newly constructed housing units but also to systems and other components and improvements that are part of the housing unit at the time of construction. Pursuant to the Act, except for construction defect claims that involve an immediate threat to the life or safety of persons occupying the dwelling, that render the dwelling uninhabitable or in which the seller, after notice, refused to make a repair pursuant to any applicable express warranty, a purchaser must comply with the provisions of the Act before filing a complaint or pursing an alternative dispute mechanism related to a construction defect in the dwelling. A seller who receives a notice complying with the provisions of the Act must give notice to all construction professionals who may be responsible for the defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

May 04, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1. This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters. Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner. 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

---