CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract

June 05, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Don’t ignore dispute resolution provisions in a construction contract. Sometimes, you may want to. But dispute resolution provisions should be one of the first provisions you look to when a dispute arises recognizing these provisions will be raised if you fail to comply. Not only will they be raised, but the presumption is they will be enforced. This is the situation that was raised in Seminole County, Florida v. APM Construction Corp., 2023 WL 3555356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). Here, a contractor was terminated for cause by Seminole County. The contractor then filed suit against the County. The County moved to dismiss the lawsuit because the contractor failed to comply with contractual presuit administrative procedures in the contract prior to filing a lawsuit. While the trial court denied the County’s motion to dismiss, the appellate court granted the County’s petition for writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss. For purposes of granting the writ of certiorari, the appellate court held irreparable harm existed because “certiorari jurisdiction is properly exercised when a trial court permits a party to litigate when there is a contractual or legal obligation to first administrative proceed.” Seminole County, supra, at *2. 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

---

Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

February 15, 2018 — Frances Ma & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Publications & Insights
Gonzalez v. Mathis, 2018 WL 718528 confirms the difficulties a defendant will face when trying to overcome the Kinsman exception to the Privette doctrine on a dispositive motion when dealing with an open and obvious hazard. There, a professional window washer fell off a roof while walking along a parapet wall constructed by the owner of a home. The window washer filed suit against the homeowner and alleged three dangerous conditions on the roof: (1) the parapet wall forced those who needed to access a skylight to walk along an exposed two-foot ledge that lacked a safety railing; (2) dilapidated and slippery roof shingles; and (3) the lack of tie off points that would allow maintenance workers to secure themselves with ropes or harnesses. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny which prohibits an independent contractor from suing his or her hirer for workplace injuries (“Privette doctrine”). There are two exceptions to the Privette doctrine. First, a hirer cannot avoid liability when he or she exercises control over the manner and means in which a contractor does his or her work and that control contributes to the injuries sustained – known as the “Hooker exception” (premised on the holding of Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198). Second, a hirer may be found liable if he or she fails to warn the contractor of a concealed hazard on the premises – known as the “Kinsman exception” (premised on the holding of Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)). Reprinted courtesy of Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

April 26, 2021 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is very proud to announce Devin Brunson has been promoted to the position of partner with the firm! Mr. Brunson came to BWB&O from another civil litigation firm and helped start the Denver, Colorado office along with partners Lucian Greco, John Toohey and Peter Brown. He has taken on a significant leadership role within the firm over the past several years and has been integral in growing the office to its current footprint. He is licensed to practice law in Colorado, District of Colorado, and in the U.S. District Court. His practice is focused in the areas of civil and business litigation, construction litigation, and employment law. Mr. Brunson has a diverse practice background that includes complex civil litigation and intellectual property disputes and has had the privilege of representing business owners, contractors, corporate executives, and professional athletes during the course of his career. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.” In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.” While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

May 20, 2019 — Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

---

APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

March 18, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Responding to a rising need to deliver an all-in-one solution, supporting on-site planning, progress communication, snagging, drawings and checklists, GenieBelt and APROPLAN have decided to merge to form LetsBuild – the European leader in delivering an end-to-end solution to the global construction industry. For the past five years, GenieBelt CEO Klaus Nyengaard and APROPLAN CEO Thomas Goubau have met on a regular basis to discuss developments in the construction technology sector and how to increase efficiency and minimise rework, miscommunication, and errors. “We share the vision that ‘simple to use’-products will bring immense value to the construction sector. When we met in October 2018, we concluded that the way to realize this vision was to unite our companies to create a broader product and cover more needs in the market,” says LetsBuild CEO Klaus Nyengaard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

September 28, 2017 — C. Lily Schurra & K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision that an insured bears the burden of establishing what portion of a jury verdict constitutes covered damages1. The case arose out of claims for property damage resulting from construction defects in a homebuilding project. The homeowners fired the construction manager, J. Barrows, Inc. (“JBI”), who then sued the homeowners in state court for unpaid fees (the “Underlying Action”). The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence. JBI’s commercial general liability insurer, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), agreed to defend JBI under a reservation of rights. Reprinted courtesy of C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Schurra may be contacted at cls@sdvlaw.com Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

April 08, 2014 — Gregory J. Rolen – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
We all understand how idle conversation and gossip can negatively impact relationships and workplace morale. But can they cause a school district to lose their lawyer? It is black-letter law that confidential communications between attorney and client are privileged, inadmissible, and cannot be later used against that client by third parties. However, under many circumstances confidential communications that occurred just outside the traditional attorney-client relationship can result in disqualification of counsel. In an environment when many educators become lawyers and education lawyers go from job to job and from client to client, care must be given to the context in which such communications occur. I. The Ethical Duty of Confidentiality Is Broader Than the Attorney-Client Privilege. Generally, every lawyer has a duty to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the attorney and client. (Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. Paladino (2001) 89 Cal. App .4th 294, 309; Evid. Code § 954.) The attorney-client privilege is statutory and permits the holder of the privilege to prevent disclosure, including testimony by the attorney, as to communications that are subject to the privilege. (Evid. Code §§ 952-955.) The attorney’s ethical duty of confidentiality under Business & Professions Code section 6068(e) is broader than the attorney-client privilege. It extends to all information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be kept secret or the disclosure of which would likely be harmful or embarrassing to the client. (See Cal. State Bar Formal Opns. No. 1993-133, 1986-87, 1981-58, and 1976-37; Los Angeles County Bar Association Formal Opns. Nos. 456, 436, and 386. See also In re Jordan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 930, 940-41.) However, if the status of the person and the purpose of the conversation is unclear to the attorney, highly negative outcomes may result. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory J. Rolen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Rolen may be contacted at grolen@hbblaw.com

---