CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

March 13, 2023 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts. In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss. On June 3, 2017, there was an explosion and fire at the plant that caused significant property damage. The plaintiff insurers (Plaintiffs) made payments in the amount of $80 million and became subrogated to its insured’s rights. Plaintiffs then initiated this action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Burden Supporting Termination for Default

January 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Terminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default. A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination. 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

---

Resurgent Housing Seen Cushioning U.S. From World Woes: Economy

January 28, 2015 — Steve Matthews – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Real estate developer Crescent Communities in Charlotte, North Carolina, expects to sell 1,000 new homes this year across the Southeast U.S. and Texas, double the number of two years ago. “Demand is the strongest since the recession” that ended in June 2009 and stemmed from the collapse in housing, said Chief Executive Officer Todd Mansfield. “The economy is getting better and the labor market is getting better.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Matthews, Bloomberg
Mr. Matthews may be contacted at smatthews@bloomberg.net

---

Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.



According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.



Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

Read the full story…

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

---

Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

June 28, 2021 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
On May 27, 2021, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73. In that case, the court decided two significant issues that apparently had never been expressly ruled on by a Colorado appellate court before: (1) that Colorado’s common-law after-acquired title doctrine was not abrogated by adoption of the after-acquired interest statute; and (2) that utility easements may be implied by necessity. As is often the case in matters involving access and implied property rights, the facts and history underlying Amada are complicated, but the case’s two most significant rulings are not. Instead, the basic legal principles established (or confirmed) in Amada appear to be broadly applicable, and real property practitioners should take note of these significant developments (or clarifications) in the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

---

Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

October 26, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are instances where the owner of a construction project terminates its general contractor prior to the completion of the project. There are instances where the owner suspends the work prior to the completion of the project, meaning there is a cessation in the construction. And, there are instances where the project is simply abandoned. I have been involved in all instances, and the owner’s reasons vary…from an owner claiming a termination for default, termination for convenience, or a suspension or abandonment due to the market or financial factors. Regardless of the owner’s reasoning, at some point—hopefully—the owner will want to resume or, more properly stated, recommence construction and complete the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

July 26, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage for the homeowners' collapse claim because the collapse provisions were deleted from the policy. Gueng-Ho Kim v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97871 (D. Conn. June 26, 2017). The homeowners purchased their home in 2004. They also purchased a homeowners policy from State Farm. In the policy, State Farm deleted the additional coverage for collapse.Also deleted from the policy was language excluding coverage for "collapse, except as specifically provided in Section I - Additional Coverages, Collapse." The homeowners discovered a problem with the property's foundation when they attempted to sell the house in 2014. The homeowners hired an engineer who found that the interior and exterior foundation had numerous spider-web cracks and the foundation walls in several locations bowed inward by as much as one and a half inches. 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

---

Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

October 27, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---