CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Fee Simple!

November 11, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Following the grant of summary judgment by a Nebraska federal court on a construction claim, the prevailing subcontractor sought recovery of attorney’s fees, but received pushback from its opponent based upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The general contractor urged “that attorney’s fees are ‘special damages’ that must be specifically pleaded within a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g).” The GC said that a prayer for “a judgment for… costs, interest, and attorney’s fees be entered” – without further asserting a statutory or factual basis for the recovery – is insufficient. The subcontractor shot back that “it complied with the requirements of Rule 9(g) because its prayer for relief expressly referenced attorney’s fees, and the request for such fees was based on the facts asserted in the pleadings themselves.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

November 16, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Truck Ins. Exchange v. AMCO Ins. Co. (No. B298798, filed 10/26/20), a California appeals court held that even though the named insured restaurant-lessee was found not liable for premises liability to injured restaurant patrons, the respective liability of the named and additional insured was irrelevant to the landlord-lessor’s coverage for injuries “arising out of” the lessee’s “use” of the premises under a landlords, managers or lessors of premises additional insured endorsement on the lessee’s general liability policy. In Truck v. AMCO, restaurant patrons were injured when a vehicle crashed into the restaurant while they were dining. The landlord was aware of a similar accident that happened several years before, but the current lessee operating the restaurant was not. The patrons sued the lessee, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to take precautionary measures and safeguard the patrons. On learning of the prior incident, the patrons added the landlord, alleging that it should have protected the property from a recurrence by reinforcing the door and installing bollards by the street. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Commonwealth Court Strikes Blow to Philly Window and Door Ordinance

January 05, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
On December 22, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued an important opinion that has flown under the radar somewhat. The case Rufo v. Board of Licenses and Inspection Review, invalidates a major portion of Philadelphia’s so called windows and doors ordinance, which requires owners of vacant properties to install glass windows and doors with frames on vacant properties. A copy of the opinion can be found here. (I only learned about the case because of a tweet by a litigator with the pro-freedom group the Institute for Justice.) The Windows and Doors Ordinance The case concerns Section 306.2 of the Property Maintenance Code which requires “the owner of a vacant building that is a blighting influence, as defined in this subcode, [to] secure all spaces designed as windows with windows that have frames and glazing and all entryways with doors.” Property owners found in violation of the ordinance can face stiff fines. Property owners are subject to a daily fine for each door and window in violation of the Ordinance. The fine is $300 per window or door. However, because most vacant properties have multiple windows and doors the fines can add up exponentially. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

January 22, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Eric L. Davis Eng’g, Inc. v. Hegemeyer, No. 14-22-00657-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8899, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Court of Appeals) considered whether the plaintiffs’ certificate of merit, in support of their professional malpractice claim against the defendant engineers, adequately set forth the experience and qualifications of the expert who submitted the certificate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the certificate of merit was inadequate because it failed to establish that the expert practiced in the same specific areas as the defendants in relation to the work at issue. The lower court denied the defendants’ motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that there was sufficient information for the lower court to have reasonably found that the plaintiffs’ expert practiced in the same area as the defendants. In Hegemeyer, the plaintiffs sued Eric L. Davis Engineering, Inc. (Davis) and Kenneth L. Douglass (Douglass), alleging improper design of their home’s foundation. The plaintiffs retained Davis to design and engineer the home and Douglass prepared the plans for the home. The plans called for the installation of post-tension cables in the home’s foundation. The plaintiffs alleged that the foundation design was improper and brought professional malpractice claims against Davis and Douglass. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

May 12, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that an umbrella carrier was obligated to assist the general liability insurer in defending the insured. Am. States Ins. Co. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, 2016 U.S. Dist LEXIS 38128 (E.D. Cal. March 23, 2016). Sierra Pacific Industries obtained rights to timber harvesting operation on a parcel of land in northern California. Sierra hired Howell's Forest Harvesting to perform certain timber harvest operations under the terms of a logging agreement. The logging agreement required Howell to obtain a CGL policy and to name Sierra as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Melinda M. Carrido – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain. Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015). Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007. Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

September 16, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
When working on federal public works construction projects there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available to protect subcontractors’ and suppliers’ right to payment. Instead, unpaid subcontractors and suppliers must resort to making a claim for payment under a federal law known as the AMiller Act@ (40 USCS 3131 et seq.). Many claimants however, do not realize that the right to make a Miller Act claim is not available to all subcontractors and suppliers. Before committing to performing work on a federal project it is important for subcontractors and suppliers to understand whether or not a Miller Act claim will be available. For those who have no Miller Act rights, careful consideration must be given to whether it is worth the risk to take on the project. For those who have valid Miller Act claim rights, important deadlines must be considered. Who Gets Paid Under a Miller Act and Who Does Not For federal projects in excess of $100,000, contractors who have a contract directly with the Federal Government must obtain Miller Act Payment Bond intended for the protection of Subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers to the project. As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor and is unpaid may bring a lawsuit for payment against the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every unpaid subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first-tier subcontractor may bring such an action. The deadlines for these claims are described below. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---