Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

September 10, 2014 — Noah Buhayar - Bloomberg
An earthquake that struck the California wine country north of San Francisco and flooding in the U.S. last month caused more than $4 billion in economic losses, according insurance broker Aon Plc. (AON) A 6.0-magnitude temblor shook the city of Napa on Aug. 24, damaging more than 1,100 buildings, injuring at least 258 people and causing about $2 billion in economic damages, the London-based broker said today in a report. Insured losses are expected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, because of the below-average extent of coverage, Aon said. “Residential earthquake insurance penetration rates have gradually lowered in California during the past two decades from 33 percent in 1996 to roughly 10 percent today,” Steve Bowen, associate director and meteorologist for Aon Benfield Impact Forecasting, said in a statement. The Napa quake “serves as a reminder of the unpredictability and costly impacts.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg
Mr. Buhayar may be contacted at nbuhayar@bloomberg.net

You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint

March 14, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In litigation, it is common for a plaintiff to amend their complaint. They may amend to add additional parties. To add new claims. To change the factual allegations. Or, to change the theme of their case. Most of the time, complaints are not verified by the plaintiff. Instead, complaints are drafted and signed by the plaintiff’s counsel. A question becomes: how prior reiterations of a complaint can be used against the plaintiff to show they are a bunch of “liars” by making amendments to their complaint. Sounds prejudicial to the plaintiff, right? Particularly if there is a jury. The reality is that amending complaints for various reasons is routine. Doing so does NOT make the plaintiff a liar and is not a vehicle that a defendant should use to create this inference. A defendant that tries to do so simply wants to detract from the substantive facts and issues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

August 21, 2023 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
Before 56 million gallons of long-stored radioactive waste at the federal Hanford nuclear waste site in Washington state can be turned into vitrified glass for disposal beginning in 2024, crews from the U.S. Energy Dept and Bechtel National that built and are commissioning the site's giant waste vitrification plant need to heat up its two 300-ton melters, the world's largest, to 2,100° F. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

February 03, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A liability insurer has two duties: 1) the duty to defend its insured; and 2) the duty to indemnify its insured. With respect to the second duty – the duty to indemnify – this duty is typically “not ripe for adjudication unless and until the insured or putative insured has been held liable in the underlying action.” Hartford Fire Ins Co. v. Beazer Homes, LLC, 2019 WL 5596237, *2 (M.D.Fla. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). For instance, Beazer Homes involved an insurance coverage dispute stemming from construction defects. An owner sued its general contractor for construction defects relating to stucco problems. The general contractor paid for the repairs. The general contractor then sued its stucco subcontractor to recover the costs it incurred. The subcontractor tendered the defense of the lawsuit to its commercial general liability insurer which is defending its insured-subcontractor under the commonly issued reservation of rights. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

November 26, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Gottschall v. Crane Co., (No. A136516, Filed 10/8/2014, published 10/22/2014), the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held a company that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products could not prevail under the “sophisticated user” doctrine based on the contention that a “sophisticated intermediary” existed, in an action brought by the end user of the products. Decedent Robert Gottschall worked in a variety of shipyards for the U.S. Navy between 1957 and 1989. Defendant Crane Co. (“Crane”) manufactured and sold products containing asbestos to the Navy during that time. During his work at the various shipyards, decedent was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

January 23, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Hawaii is having a bit of a building boom and with this, as Honolulu Civil Beat points out, comes a boom in construction defect litigation, noting that “if past experience is any indicator, the wave of construction will likely be followed by a surge in complex and, for attorneys at least, profitable litigation.” The article provides plenty of evidence to back up that assertion. Defect claims are already resulted in a settlement at Pinnacle Honolulu, a 37-unit luxury condominium project. The owners received a $2.4 million settlement after building code violations were discovered, including fire partitions that either were not fully extended or were breached in some fashion. Meanwhile, the owners of the Koolani Condominiums are still trying to collect on their $12 million arbitration award related to problems in the water system. Another luxury condominium project, the Hokua Condominiums, also has had problems with flooding from water pipes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

January 11, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an association files a lawsuit pertaining to matters of common interest, the lawsuit is typically filed as a class on behalf of the owners that make up the association (i.e., the association’s members). How do you deal with an arbitration provision that is included in an owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement or recorded in the deed? The recent opinion in Lennar Homes, LLC v. Martinique at the Oasis Neighborhood Association, Inc., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D15c (Fla 3rd DCA 2021) dealt with this exact issue with a homeowner’s association ruling that the association was required to arbitrate its latent construction defect claims against the developer (homebuilder). In this case, a community in Miami consisted of 26 townhouse buildings. There was a broad arbitration provision in each owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement that included disputes relating to property damage. Further, with each closing, a special warranty deed was recorded that included a nearly identical arbitration provision. The association became aware of latent defects relating to the exterior walls of the buildings and filed a lawsuit against the developer (homebuilder). The developer moved to compel the dispute to arbitration which was denied by the trial court because there was no specific agreement between the association and the developer that required arbitration and the lawsuit dealt with matters that the association was obligated to maintain. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

March 08, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost. The Oetiker Case James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded, in 2004. In 2016, the Philsons tendered a claim to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company, after their home experienced significant water damage due to a defective stainless steel ear clamp. In 2018, after paying the Philson’s claim, State Farm filed a subrogation action against the manufacturer of the ear clamp, Oetiker, Inc. State Farm’s complaint, which included causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, alleged that the home was “damaged by a water leak from the failure of a defective stainless steel ear claim on a water PEX fitting” and that the ear clamp was “defective when it left the control of [Oetiker].” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES