Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

January 16, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Previously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.) In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

February 07, 2018 — David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights
In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.

Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.

The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.

The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.

The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.

Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.

Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

November 21, 2017 — Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Originally published by CDJ on August 30, 2017 On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr Erickson may be contacted at rerickson@swlaw.com

Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose

May 01, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
On April 13, 2023, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, signed into law SB 360 which, among other things, shortens the statute of repose period for improvements to real property. The law also revises the date on which the statute of limitations period runs for these types of damage claims. Florida’s revision of this law provides further evidence of the state’s tort reform efforts. The new law went into effect upon signing and includes the following changes:

Shortens the statute of repose period set forth in Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c) for actions founded on the design, planning or construction of improvements to real estate from ten (10) to seven (7) years. The statute of repose period runs from the earliest (rather than the latest) of the date: a) the authority having jurisdiction issues a temporary certificate of occupancy; b) a certificate of occupancy; c) a certificate of completion; or d) of abandonment of construction if not completed. Of note, the revised repose period eliminates that date of actual possession by the owner as one of the accrual dates.

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

California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

January 24, 2018 — Don MacGregor - CDJ STAFF
Reaction to the recent California Supreme Court ruling in McMillin Albany LLC v. The Superior Court of Kern County has been both swift and diverse, with many notable California law firms weighing in on the potential impact this landmark ruling may have on the Construction Industry and construction defect litigation. In our ongoing desire to serve as a meaningful and comprehensive provider of news and information for Construction and Claims Professionals, we have included a selected number of the submissions we have received regarding this very important judicial ruling. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NCDOT Aims to Reopen Helene-damaged Interstate 40 by New Year's Day

December 10, 2024 — Derek Lacey - Engineering News-Record
Interstate 40, closed in late September when flooding from Hurricane Helene caused multiple landslides and washouts in the Pigeon River Gorge between North Carolina and Tennessee, is expected to partially reopen on New Year’s Day 2025, more than three months after the storm. Long-term reconstruction plans are still in early development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, ENR
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com

Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

March 04, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The policy's one year suit limitation provision was upheld, depriving insureds of benefits under the policy. Oswald v. South Central Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1077 (Dec. 24, 2018). The Oswalds' hog barn burned down on June 21, 2016. Arson was a possible cause. The Oswalds were insured under a combination policy issued by North Star Mutual Insurance Company and South Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central provided coverage for basic perils, broad perils, and limited perils, which included fire losses. The Central policy required property claims to be brought within one year after the loss. By endorsement, the North Star policy required suits be brought within two years after the loss. Presumably, the claims was denied, although the decision does not state this. 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