Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

You Can Now Build a Multi-Million Dollar Home via Your iPad

January 07, 2015 — Sara Pepitone – Bloomberg
There are apps for real estate sales, apps for paint color, apps for arranging furniture, and apps for making the best use of natural light. But until now, there was no app for that most fundamental process of homesteading: creating a new one from scratch. In the coming weeks Al Hamra Real Estate Development will unveil its all-inclusive Home Builder app. All you need is an iPad and five million UAE Dirham ($1.36 million), to start. Swipe and spend has never been so elite. Designed by A++ Architecture Design and Communication, Home Builder starts with property acquisition and ends with finishes and furnishings. Well, to be precise, it ends with a form sent to a sales person to calculate a price to purchase. This means less time and fewer people and permits in your way, plus a more gratifying (literal) hands-on experience in the process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sara Pepitone, Bloomberg

Former NYC Condo Empire Executive Arrested for Larceny, Tax Fraud

March 11, 2024 — Ava Benny-Morrison - Bloomberg
A former New York executive facing lawsuits over the collapse of real estate empire HFZ Capital Group has been arrested in Miami, charged with grand larceny and tax fraud. Nir Meir, 48, was arrested Monday, a spokesperson for the Miami-Dade Police Department confirmed. Meir was detained on an out-of-state warrant, suggesting his arrest may be the result of an investigation by law enforcement in New York. A spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Meir’s attorney also didn’t immediately respond to an email. Meir, the former managing principal of HFZ Capital Group, has been battling multiple lawsuits in New York over his involvement in the once-prominent real estate firm. He’s denied wrongdoing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ava Benny-Morrison, Bloomberg

California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

August 24, 2017 — William L. Doerler - White and Williams LLP
The California legislature recently enacted legislation – SB 496 – limiting a design professional’s indemnification obligations in private contracts related to design services. The term “design professional” refers to licensed architects, landscape architects and professional land surveyors, and registered professional engineers. As revised, Cal. Civ. Code § 2782.8 states that, for all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018 for design professional services, all provisions that purport to have the design professional indemnify the indemnitee for claims against the indemnitee – or require the design professional to provide a defense to the indemnitee – are unenforceable except to the extent that the claims against the indemnitee arise out of, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. In addition, as revised, § 2782.8 limits a design professional’s liability for the cost of defense to the design professional’s percentage of fault. 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

Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

February 10, 2020 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Seattle’s Audacious Aquarium Throws Builders Swerves, Curves, Twists and Turns

January 08, 2024 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Patrick Nation describes the reinforcing steel for the main tank of the 50,000-sq-ft Seattle Aquarium Ocean Pavilion as a “monster” job for CMC Rebar. In his mind, it was like bending 496 tons of bars “on a golf ball.” In reality, the operation was more like weaving a giant steel basket. Ironworkers had to painstakingly hand-thread the reinforcing steel for the doubly curved and slanted concrete walls of the 350,000-gallon saltwater exhibit—one bar at a time—to create the dense latticework for the 41-ft-tall basket. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (07/05/23) – A Hospitality Strike in Southern California, Agencies Step in With Lenders and the Social in ESG

August 14, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, we see promising developments for climate change action in commercial real estate, how homeowners are reacting to new energy concerns, the fallout of the U.S. debt ceiling fight on global M&A deals, and more!

There are new ways the commercial real estate sector can grow its commitment to climate goals and contributions to reducing its carbon footprint. (Mahesh Ramanujam, Forbes)
Thousands of hospitality workers in Southern California went on strike to demand higher wages, access to affordable family health care benefits and stronger workplace protections. (Julianne McShane, NBC)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES