Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

October 29, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
When California voters cast their votes on November 4, 2014 they will decide the fate of a $7.5 billion water bond proposal – Proposition 1 – which would authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds and reallocate $425 million in previously authorized but unissued bonds for water supply infrastructure projects. Proposition 1 – The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 If you live in California you know that the state is in the midst of its third straight year of drought. And it’s no ordinary drought. According to some, it’s the severest drought on record, as nearly the entire state experiences “severe” to “exceptional” drought conditions across its counties. The California Water Resources Board has implemented emergency water conservation regulations including hefty fines for those who don’t comply and even Governor Brown has allowed the grounds of the State Capitol to go brown to underscore the severity of the situation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although the year has been better for the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, with a 9% increase since last year, this September saw 25% less construction spending than last September. Non-residential construction dropped even further, losing 36%. Although September was a bad month, the year-to-date value of construction contracts is about $3.3 billion, exceeding last year’s $3.0 billion for the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Columbia, South Carolina homeowner has sued Kinney Brick Co., alleging that the bricks used in his home were defective and are now crumbling. The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturer and the distributor were both aware that the bricks would retain moisture and crumble. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/18/23) – Zillow’s New Pilot Program, Production Begins at Solar Panel Plant in Georgia, and More Diversity on Contracts for Buffalo Bills Stadium

November 27, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, Netflix announces plans to open brick-and-mortar locations, NYU develops a way to examine buildings using drones, robots and AI, distressed U.S. commercial real estate hits a 10-year high, and more!

Zillow is piloting a new program in Arizona offering new home buyers thousands of dollars to help them with their down payments. (Oliver Staley, TIME)
After an initial backlash regarding workforce diversity, a Gilbane-Turner joint venture has given 40% of contracts on the new Buffalo Bills’ stadium to minority-, women- or service-disabled veteran-owned companies. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
To ensure easier compliance with New York City’s Local Law 97, researchers at NYU are developing a method using drones, robots and AI to examine building exteriors for leaks. (Nish Amarnath, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

August 17, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

June 27, 2022 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
A key federal infrastructure bill advanced with approval in the House of a measure providing $25.3 billion to help finance 22 Army Corps of Engineers storm and flood protection, ecological restoration, harbor dredging and other projects around the country. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

July 16, 2023 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

The court concluded:

Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Read the court’s decision…

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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES