CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property

January 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The district court found that under Illinois law, the damage caused by the insured's faulty workmanship to portions of building beyond the scope of its own work was covered under a CGL policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Decorating Serv., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXS 159140 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2015). 200 North Jefferson, LLC was the owner and developer of a 24- story condominium building. 200 North Jefferson retained as the general contractor McHugh Construction Co. McHugh Construction retained National Decorating Service, Inc. as the subcontractor to perform all painting work on the project. The Condominium Association sued 200 North Jefferson, McHugh Construction, MCZ/Jameson Development Group, LLC, National Decorating for faulty workmanship. The alleged damages included:(1) cracking of the exterior concrete walls, interior walls and ceilings; (2) significant leakage through the exterior concrete walls, balconies, and windows; (3) defects to the common elements of the building; and (4) damage to the interior ceilings, floors, interior painting, drywall and furniture in the units. 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

---

Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

February 18, 2015 — Stephen McKae – California Construction Law Blog
Returning from an Oregon vacation this past Summer along I-5, I found frequent reminders of the extraordinary drought conditions prevailing across California. A grey smoky gloom blanketed the California-Oregon border from Ashland to Weed from at least five wildfires. The prediction of rains in the north state was more curse than blessing as lightning threatened to touch off tender-dry fuel in the forests and start more fires. Farmers tilling fields produced massive dust clouds. And under the I-5 bridge along the Sacramento River arm of Lake Shasta, the lake had receded to the original streambed. On NOAA’s Palmer Drought Severity Index, nearly all of California is listed as in a condition of extreme or severe drought, and the Governor has issued a Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency requiring water conservation measures affecting all California residents. Indeed, early August news reports indicate that hopes of relief from an El Nĩno year are waning. The State Water Resources Control Board’s Emergency Regulation No. 2014 issued July 15 mandates action to reduce water use and require larger water suppliers to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until April 25, 2015 unless extended due to ongoing drought conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen McKae, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. McKae may be contacted at smckae@wendel.com

---

US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

November 15, 2021 — Debra K. Rubin & Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Nov. 6 stayed the Biden administration's requirement that workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing potential "grave statutory and constitutional" issues raised by opponents of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's emergency temporary standard announced on Nov. 4. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

January 13, 2020 — Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
In July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract. The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret. The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech. The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.” The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding. In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement. Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit. The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms. Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Thirteen Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

August 19, 2024 — Payne & Fears LLP
Congratulations to the 13 Payne & Fears attorneys included in the 2025 Edition of “Lawyer of the Year,” The Best Lawyers In America®, and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®. Attorneys have been recognized in the following practice areas: 2025 Edition “Lawyer of the Year” Orange County Benjamin A. Nix

• Trade Secrets Law

Daniel F. Fears

• Litigation – Labor and Employment

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

January 26, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---

Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List

October 14, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Benchmark Litigation has named Syed Ahmad, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage practice, to the publication’s 40 & Under Hot List. Benchmark Litigation is the definitive guide to America’s leading litigation firms and attorneys. The 40 & Under Hot List honors the most notable up-and-coming litigation attorneys in the United States. Those named to the list have proven their eligibility as individuals at the partner level of their respective firms who are 40 years of age or younger. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

March 09, 2020 — Mark T. Caloyer & Joelle Nelson - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On February 19, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in the matter of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018, No. 27 EAP 2018 (Pa. 2020). The Court’s opinion is a must-read for anyone involved in asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania. In Roverano, the Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) does not preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment of liability to strict liability defendants. In addition, the Court ruled that bankruptcy trusts, that are either joined as third-party defendants or that have entered into a release with the plaintiff, may be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability. In this case, Mr. Roverano sued 30 defendants in strict liability and Defendant Crane filed a joinder complaint against Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust. The case proceeded to trial against eight defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At trial, some of the defendants filed motions in limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that asbestos exposure cannot be quantified, and held that that it would apportion liability on a per capita basis consistent with the Court’s opinion in Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000). Reprinted courtesy of Mark T. Caloyer, Lewis Brisbois and Joelle Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Caloyer may be contacted at Mark.Caloyer@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Joelle.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---