Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

August 26, 2015 — James Tarmy & Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
Apartments for very wealthy New Yorkers have remained mostly within the city’s smallest borough. Until now. The record price for a Brooklyn home broke the $15 million threshold this summer, and by now it’s widely accepted that New York’s outer boroughs are not much of a bargain, growing further out of reach for the aspiring homeowner. The rush of new construction in gentrifying neighborhoods has pushed up the price of land, and that’s caused construction costs to rise, too. Eventually, to make a profit, developers have to build luxury buildings, according to Jonathan Miller, the president of New York appraiser Miller Samuel. “We have this perfect storm,” he says. “Everybody gets the same idea at the same time, so materials and labor are at a premium. Throw in the high price of land at each locale, and you’ve got to build a luxury product.” Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

February 07, 2022 — Ryan Hesketh - Bloomberg
There’s a secret dogging British buildings with some of the most coveted environmental ratings: On paper they’re green, but scratch the surface and they’re red hot. Buildings that have received the highest rating in the U.K. — an A Energy Performance Certificate — use more energy than some of their peers rated C, D, E or even F. This disparity between how buildings are designed and what their actual emissions are is widespread in the U.K., according to recent findings from the Better Buildings Partnership, which analyzed 2020 self-reported energy data provided for more than 1,100 commercial properties. It found that commercial buildings regularly use more energy than their sterling eco-friendly labels would suggest. In fact, the analysis finds, the ratings are so far off that the median energy intensity for all B-rated buildings is higher than for C-rated buildings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Hesketh, Bloomberg

Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

October 28, 2015 — Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Japan’s biggest developer, is considering rebuilding an apartment complex in Yokohama after one of the four buildings started to tilt, according to a person familiar with the situation. Kiyotaka Fujibayashi, president and chief executive officer of Mitsui Fudosan Residential Co., on Thursday explained the plans to residents, according to the person, who asked not to be named because the information is private. Another option the company is studying is buying back the apartments from the residents at a price higher than what they had paid, the person said. The project was sold in 2006. Mitsui Fudosan is the latest developer to come under scrutiny for defects at residential projects in the Tokyo area. Mitsubishi Estate Co., Japan’s biggest developer by market value, said last year it would rebuild a residential complex in the upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding faults. Also last year, Sekisui House Ltd. said it would reconstruct a residential complex that was being built by Taisei Corp. after finding some columns were missing reinforcing metals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katsuyo Kuwako, Bloomberg

Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

August 04, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court in Colorado has determined in the case of RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America that Travelers did not breach its insurance contract when it refused to cover RK Mechanical.

RK Mechanical performed an HVAC installation for a residential project for which J.E. Dunn Rocky Mountain was the general contractor. As part of the work, RK “installed approximately one hundred seventy-one CPVC flanges, which were manufactured by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company.” Two of these flanges failed in June, 2009 leading to water damage. RK replaced the cracked flanges and engaged in water remediation. “Travelers paid Dunn and RK for the costs associated with the water damage associated with the Flange Failure.” The court notes that Travelers did not pay for the cracked flanges, however.

Subsequently, RK examined the remaining flanges, finding many cracked ones. These were replaced with new ones. Later, all the Charlotte flanges were replaced with ones from another manufacturer. RK applied for coverage.

All sides brought in their experts: “Microbac Laboratories, Inc. prepared a report on behalf of RK concluding that the Flange Failure was due, in part, to an assembly or workmanship defect in addition to manufacturing defects in the flanges. Higgins & Associates prepared a report on behalf of Travelers concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation. Plastic Failure Labs prepared a report on behalf of the flange manufacturer concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation by RK.”

At this point, Travelers denied coverage. RK sued alleging that the coverage for flange failure and water damage implicitly includes mitigation costs. The court rejected this claim, noting it would do so even if Travelers had paid for the replacement of the first two flanges. Nor did the court find that replacement of the faulty flanges is not "a covered cause of loss." RK also argued that as it was required to mitigate, Travelers was obligated to cover costs. However, the court found that “the mitigation costs expended by RK were not incurred in an effort to avoid damages from a potential breach of contract by Travelers.” The court additionally noted that despite RK’s claims, the Colorado courts have not found a common law duty to mitigate. Finally, the court found that the exclusions in the policy were not in violation of public policy.

Read the court’s decision…

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

COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

April 20, 2020 — Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh & Amanda Tharpe - Lewis Brisbois
Earlier this week, a rumor made the rounds that a forthcoming Presidential Executive Order would impose a nationwide mandate that all employees work remotely. While the rumor proved baseless, it raised questions about manufacturers’ abilities to comply with environmental permit obligations in the event of a COVID-19 precipitated operational shutdown due to federal or state mandates or workforce depletion resulting from widespread illness. Previous emergencies offer some insights on what to expect as companies and their counsel assess environmental business risk. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive or modify requirements, issue emergency permits, or expedite permits as needed to respond to disaster and recovery needs. In the end, no new legislation was enacted, because existing emergency powers under environmental statutes proved sufficient to allow for waiver of regulatory requirements or exercise of enforcement discretion. Key provisions include the following:

The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) affirmative defense for “upset” conditions. This provision excuses non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations due to factors outside the permittee’s control. Criteria for establishing the defense include: 1) the upset occurred and the permittee can identify the cause, 2) the permitted facility was at the time being properly operated, 3) the permittee submitted notice of the upset (24 hour notice), and 4) the permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 C.F.R. §122.41(d).

Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh and Amanda Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. William may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Amanda may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:

A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although the year has been better for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, with a 9% increase since last year, this September saw 25% less construction spending than last September. Non-residential construction dropped even further, losing 36%. Although September was a bad month, the year-to-date value of construction contracts is about $3.3 billion, exceeding last year’s $3.0 billion for the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

September 29, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If there is one mantra that is repeated often here at Construction Law Musings, it is that your construction contract will be strictly construed and Virginia Courts will enforce the provisions as written. This rule includes forum selection clauses. For those that aren’t attorneys, this means that absent a statute to the contrary, the parties can pick the location of any litigation or arbitration by contract. However, the timing of signing that contract makes a difference as a relatively recent Eastern District of Virginia case points out. Marathon Res. Mgmt Grp v. C. Cornell, Inc. examined what happens when work is performed by one party to the contract prior to the execution of the written contract that contains the forum selection provision. In this case, the defendant C. Cornell, Inc. obtained a default judgment in Texas for non-payment by Marathon for painting and cleaning of rooms at Texas A & M University for work invoiced on August 22, 2017, and September 11, 2017. Upon receipt of the garnishment from the Texas Court, Marathon sued C. Cornell in Virginia state court and the defendant removed the case to federal court. Marathon alleged two separate breaches of contract, the first was that C. Cornell violated the forum selection clause of a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) executed on September 23, 2017. The second was a violation of another clause of the MSA that barred direct communication with any of Marathon’s customers. The second breach was alleged to be by virtue of the garnishment summons to one of Marathon’s customers. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES