Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

August 23, 2021 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Many trade contracts contain a clause that may protect trade contractors from catastrophic events like pandemics. These clauses are known as force-majeure clauses (covering acts of God). They basically say if these unavoidable events happen, the contractor is relieved of its obligations to the extent of the impact. However, many common industry forms have not been updated to specifically address COVID-19. (They may be waiting to see how the courts treat their existing language first.) So to ensure impacts from COVID-19 are covered, a trade contractor should consider expressly adding it to the force-majeure clause. See the example below. Notably, typical force-majeure clauses do not say the trade contractor gets more money. So an escalation clause could be added to the force-majeure clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

February 16, 2017 — Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

January 02, 2024 — Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A majority of insurance policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer. The cooperation clause generally states, “the insured agrees to Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the suit.” The “cooperation clause” is often an afterthought because once litigation has ensued an insured is focused on other important considerations. However, insureds should not forget that complying with the cooperation clause can make the difference between the insurer covering or denying a claim. The Cooperation Clause in Action The Court in HDI Glob. Specialty SE v. PF Holdings, LLC,1 highlighted the importance of cooperating with an insurance carrier. In the underlying litigation, residents of an apartment complex sued four entities, all insured by the same insurance policy: two were named insureds and two were additional insureds. The primary insurer provided a defense for the named insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com

Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
I have written numerous articles regarding the challenge in proving lost profit damages. Yes, lost profits are a form of damages in business disputes, but they are a form of damages that are subject to a certain degree of conjecture and speculation. For this reason, lost profit evidence is oftentimes precluded from being presented at trial or lost profit damages are reversed on appeal. This is why it is imperative to ensure i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed when it comes to proving lost profit damages. It is also imperative, when defending a lost profit claim, to put on evidence and establish the speculative nature of the lost profit damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned

September 18, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal overturned the jury's verdict findng loss caused by collapse. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 4474 (Fla. Ct. App. June 28, 2023). The insured homeowners had two claims. One was a 2016 ceiling collapse; the second was loss caused by Hurricane Irma in 2019. The homeowners' policy covered collapse defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building . . . cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." Collapse had to be caused by, among other things, decay or insect damage that was hidden from view. 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

South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

March 18, 2019 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

March 11, 2024 — Alan Winkler - ConsensusDocs
It is fairly common for a construction contract to include a provision requiring the contractor to perform some level of review of the plans and specifications and perhaps other contract documents as part of their responsibilities. Typically, this provision is found in a section of the contract on the contractor’s responsibilities, although it can be anywhere. Owners and contractors are, with reason, focused on three main issues in reviewing contracts: (1) price, costs, and payments, (2) time and scheduling, and (3) scope of the work. Eyes may glaze over the contractor’s responsibilities section. Not only does it seem to be boilerplate, but industry professionals know what a contractor is supposed to do; in a nutshell, build the project. An old school type of contractor may regard this role as strictly following the plans and specifications, no matter what they provide. That could lead to a situation where construction comes to a complete stop because, for example, two elements are totally incompatible with each other. If that happens, the contractor would then turn to the owner and architect to ask for a corrective plan and instructions on how to proceed. That may also be accompanied by a request for more time and money while the problem is resolved. The ‘review the contract documents’ clause is designed to avoid this. It is intended to address an understanding that everyone makes mistakes, even architects and engineers whose job it is to design a buildable, functional project. The clause also addresses the understanding that a contractor is more than a rote implementer of plans and specifications because its expertise in building necessarily means the contractor has expertise in understanding the documents that define the construction and how things are put together. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Winkler, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Winkler may be contacted at awinkler@pecklaw.com

Governor Signs AB5 Into Law — Reshaping California's Independent Contractor Classification Landscape

December 02, 2019 — Eric C. Sohlgren & Matthew C. Lewis - Payne & Fears Legal Alert
Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), controversial legislation which will have a substantial impact on California employers when it goes into effect on January 1, 2020. AB5 enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Under the ABC test established in Dynamex and now under AB5, a worker may be properly considered an independent contractor only if the hiring entity establishes all three of the following: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. Reprinted courtesy of Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears and Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES