CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

October 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination of no coverage for construction defects based upon the policy's prior work exclusion. Yu v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5966 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2014). Plaintiff was the owner and developer of a hotel. She contracted with ATMI Design Build to act as general contractor to construct the hotel. C&A Framing Company was a subcontractor to provide rough framing for the project. In May 2003, ATMI fired C&A before it had completed all the work required by the subcontract. After May 2003, C&A never returned to the construction site. Notice of Completion for the project was recorded April 15, 2004. In September 2004, Landmark issued to C&A a CGL policy for the period September 18, 2004 to September 18, 2005. The policy was later cancelled, effective January 14, 2005. The policy contained an endorsement entitled, "Exclusion - Your Prior Work." The exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' arising out of 'your work' prior to 9/18/04." 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

---

No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

February 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Even though it’s been revealed that “faulty data” was used to reject many New Jersey recovery grants for victims of Superstorm Sandy, the state has announced that it’s too late to appeal, according to The Wall Street Journal. “The applicants were informed by letter that they weren't eligible,” state officials told The Wall Street Journal, “and it should have been clear that they needed to appeal last year, so the application process won't be reopened.” The majority of the rejected applicants that did appeal within the open period were found to be eligible for the grant: “Nearly 80% of people who appealed their rejections ended up winning their cases, according to data released by the Fair Share Housing Center, a public-interest law firm critical of the Christie administration. And of the 8,007 applicants rejected from both programs, 5,583 didn't appeal, or 70%, according to Fair Share Housing Center's analysis.” U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell called for “an independent monitor” to be “appointed to oversee the state’s storm spending ‘to ensure there isn’t further mismanagement.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

March 02, 2020 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund. Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

---

The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

September 30, 2019 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry. In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract. Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

---

Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
With the rising number of Americans over the age of sixty-five, there is an “upswing” in demand of “aging-in-place home features,” according to Big Builder. Big Builder also noted seven accessible features that homebuyers identified when surveyed by The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). A couple of the features listed were “doorways at least three feet wide” and “non-slip floors.” The survey results were reported in What Home Buyers Really Want, released in May 2013 by the NAHB. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

January 21, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied the insured's claim based upon misrepresentations in the application after destruction of his house by fire. Hayes v. Metropolitan Pro. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31813 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). Hayes' home was insured by Met under a homeowner's policy. Hayes used the detached garage as part of a home base for his plumbing business. He also rented out the second and third levels of the residence to a tenant and her two children. When Hayes applied for the policy in 2007, Met argues he indicated on the application that the premises were not used to conduct business, and were not used as rental property. 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

---

Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

February 28, 2018 — Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham - Construction Executive Magazine
Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

March 28, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, the Virginia General Assembly closed its session having passed legislation essentially banning “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts, both public and private. Assuming that Governor Youngkin signs the bill into law on or before his deadline of April 11, 2022, the following new requirement will be grafted into any Virginia construction contract:

Such contract shall require such higher-tier contractor to pay such lower-tier subcontractor within the earlier of (i) 45 days of the satisfactory completion of the portion of the work for which the subcontractor has invoiced or (ii) seven days after receipt of amounts paid by the owner to the general contractor or by the higher-tier contractor to the lower-tier contractor for work performed by a subcontractor pursuant to the terms of the contract.

This is the main operative language (the 45-day payment requirement is also applied to project owners), but the legislation also imposes certain other notice duties upon both the owner and any higher-tier contractor on a construction project. Interestingly, the legislation does not include a provision making it only effective for those contracts entered into after its effective date. More on that later. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---