Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The construction defect law firm Anderson Shoech has a solution to some of the problems with the California courts. They note that cases often work their way through the system more slowly than they did in the past, due to “unprecedented cuts of over $1 billion from the State Court budget.” Prior to the cuts, cases were resolved “within six months to a year.” Under the current conditions, those involved in a lawsuit “would be lucky if their case was heard within 18 months of filing and could expect at least two full years to pass.” They recommend that California return to appropriately funding the court system. Failure to do so could cause business to go to states “with a functioning and predictable court system.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Foreign Entry into the United States Construction, Infrastructure and PPP Markets

September 11, 2023 — Robert A. James - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Two major forces are combining to create extraordinary opportunities for infrastructure project participants in the United States. One is the long pent-up demand for overhaul of the nation’s roads, ports, dams and other civil works. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) routinely awards “C-” or worse grades for the status and safety of the country’s backbone facilities. The lack of prior investment is apparent to anyone who uses public transit in the U.S. and then uses similar conveniences in major cities around the globe. The other is the set of political incentives laid down by recent legislation including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which have authorized over $1 trillion for programs, many of which call for new and expanded facilities. According to the 2023 U.S. Construction Industry Databook Report, the national construction market is expected to record a compound annual growth rate of 5.2% during 2023 – 2027, and the aggregate output is expected to reach $1.7 trillion by 2027. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com

Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

June 30, 2016 — Jimmy Morgan & Eric Pfeiffer – Engineering News-Record
Every organization that participates in the construction and manufacturing industries understands that safety is critical to success and strives to end each day injury-free and incident-free. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jimmy Morgan & Eric Pfeiffer, Engineering News-Record
Comments or questions regarding this story may be submitted to ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

September 30, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.

On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

July 23, 2014 — Scott Patterson - CD Coverage
In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

It’s a Jolly Time of the Year: 5 Tips for Dealing with Construction Labor Issues During the Holidays

December 18, 2022 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
It’s that time of year again – the holiday season is upon us, and for those in the construction industry, that can mean a few extra challenges when it comes to maintaining efficiency on the job site. Here are five best practices for dealing with labor during the holiday season:

Communicate early and often: Make sure to clearly communicate any changes to the schedule or workload to your team as early as possible. This will give them time to plan and prepare, and help prevent any potential issues from arising.
Offer incentives: Consider offering incentives to encourage your team to stay focused and productive during the holiday season. This could be something as simple as a bonus or extra time off, or something more creative like a gift card or other prize.
Stay organized: The holiday season can be a busy time, so it’s important to stay organized and on top of your schedule. This means keeping track of deadlines, delegating tasks effectively, and staying in close communication with your team.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “[T]he federal trial of former construction company boss Leon Benzer and five others in a massive scheme to take over Las Vegas-area homeowners associations” has been delayed to February 2015 by U.S. District Judge James Mahan. Defense attorneys “argued they needed more time to review thousands of pages of new documents provided by prosecutors.” The prosecutors did not object to the delay. Benzer and the other defendants face conspiracy and fraud charges in an HOA takeover scheme that allegedly occurred between 2003 and 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.

Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.

Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.

The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”

The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.

The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.

Read the court’s decision…