Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

March 06, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After a jury awarded damages related to the insurer's delayed payment under the claim and the insurer's post trial motions to set aside the verdict were denied, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. US General, LLC v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34066 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022). Crossroads American Baptist Church submitted a claim to GuideOne for hailstorm damage. Crossroads hired US General as the general contractor to perform the repairs and later assigned its interest in the insurance policy to US General. Numerous disputes arose between Crossroads and GuideOne regarding the cost of the repairs. There were delayed payments and portions of the repairs were never paid for. The delayed payments meant GuideOne's ability to begin making the repairs was hindered because it was more expensive to start and stop a project. 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

Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

May 23, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Vik Nagpal and Associate Attorney Tim McNulty of the Encinitas office recently obtained a substantial victory on behalf of BWB&O’s client after a 10-day binding construction arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel of the American Arbitration Association. BWB&O’s client was sued by the Owner of a commercial office building related to a multimillion-dollar tenant improvement project in San Diego. The Owner asserted construction defect damages, delay damages, architectural negligence, fraudulent billing practices and consequential damages of $3.6 million dollars. BWB&O’s client claimed breach of contract damages against the owner for failure to pay invoices. The Owner who had substantial financial resources and a personal spite against the general contractor, unreasonably pursued the case with an extensive team of lawyers and experts. At an earlier full-day mediation, the owner rejected a reasonable settlement offer which included a settlement payment to the Owner and the client’s agreement to dismiss their affirmative claim for damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

July 22, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The repair of two fractured girders spanning Fremont Street and the reinforcement of twin girders spanning First Street are complete at the beleaguered Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

December 13, 2021 — George Morrison - White and Williams LLP
On November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow. Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:

The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com

Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim

November 23, 2020 — Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLP
After an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier. USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.” Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The question involves whether a Colorado law passed in 2005 has made it too easy for homeowners to sue developers for construction defects, allegedly causing a decline in condominium building in the state. The Construction Defect Journal became a forum for this lively debate with two prominent, Colorado, construction defect attorneys providing their views on the subject: Jesse Howard Witt, of the Witt Law Firm, published “Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers.” Read the full story... In response, James M. Mulligan of Snell & Wilmer, LLP presented his perspective in, “Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?” Read the full story... The city of Lakewood did not wait for the state, but instead passed its own ordinance, which “gives developers and builders a ‘right to repair’ defects before facing litigation and would require condominium association boards to get consent from a majority of homeowners — rather than just the majority of the board — before filing suit,” according to John Aguilar’s piece in The Denver Post. Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

April 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bloomberg Business Week reported that “PG&E Corp. (PCG:US), owner of California’s largest utility, was charged with 12 pipeline safety violations by the U.S. government for a 2010 natural gas explosion that killed eight people and left a crater the size of a house.” PG&E was charged “with knowingly and willfully violating the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act by failing to test and assess unstable pipelines to determine whether they could fail.” Furthermore, “Federal investigators are studying whether a leaking gas main operated by Consolidated Edison Inc. (ED:US) contributed to an explosion in New York City last month that also claimed eight lives.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

July 31, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Defining words and phrases in the law can be a tricky proposition. In everyday life one would presume to know what the phrase “intended use” would mean, but when it comes to litigation, oftentimes the definitions become much more nuanced. On March 12, 2013, in the Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., WL 950800 (D. Colo. 2013) case, Senior District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel denied Third-Party Defendant Canal Insurance Company’s (“Canal”) motion to dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Hartford”) third-party complaint. The case arose out of a liability insurance coverage dispute related to an underlying construction defect lawsuit. In the construction defect suit, a plaintiff homeowner’s association brought a suit against a developer and a general contractor (“GC”) among others. While the underlying action was settled, a dispute remained between Bituminous Casualty Corporation, which insured the GC, and Hartford, which insured the developer. Hartford asserted third-party claims against Canal seeking a declaration of Canal’s obligations and contribution in the event Hartford owed any defense or indemnity obligations to the GC. Hartford’s claims are based on the premise that Canal owed a duty to defend and/or indemnify the GC in the underlying action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES