Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

December 09, 2019 — Brenda Radmacher & Nicholas Krebs - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Do you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance. Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at nkrebs@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

May 21, 2014 — Kathleen M. Howley – Bloomberg
Melvin Watt, the overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, broke five months of silence to help boost lending as slowing sales threatens the housing recovery. Watt, 68, in his first speech as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, announced new rules to reduce the risk that lenders will have to repurchase bad mortgages. The changes, designed to allow banks to relax credit standards, probably will increase housing sales by 5 percent this year, said Stephanie Karol, an economist at Englewood, Colorado-based research firm IHS Inc. “It means a restart for the real estate recovery,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics Inc. “We’re not going to get back on track until we start making credit more available to potential buyers.” He said he expects Watt’s moves to spur “meaningful” sales growth. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen M. Howley, Bloomberg
Ms. Howley may be contacted at kmhowley@bloomberg.net

The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

September 10, 2018 — William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace. In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?

January 31, 2018 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Publications & Insights
A torrent of alerts have been flooding e-mail inboxes regarding the California Supreme Court’s decision in McMillin v. Superior Court, to reverse the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) case, but with little discussion about the practical effects of the ruling. This alert will discuss how this ruling affects litigation of SB 800 Claims and Builders. Background on Liberty Mutual Case In 2002, the California Legislature enacted comprehensive construction defect litigation reform referred to as the Right to Repair Act (the “Act”). Among other things, the Act establishes standards for residential dwellings, and creates a prelitigation process that allows builders an opportunity to cure the construction defects before being sued. Since its enactment, however, the Act’s application has been up for debate. Most notably, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held the Act was the exclusive remedy only in instances where the defects caused only economic loss, and that homeowners could pursue other remedies in situations where the defects caused actual property damage or personal injuries. Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

September 28, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Greater Mutual Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company, 2020 WL 5370419 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to consider the “other insurance” provisions of a commercial general liability policy, issued by Greater Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”), and a directors and officers (“D&O”) policy, issued by Continental, to the same insured. The GNY policy covered, inter alia, property damage caused by an occurrence, as well as “personal advertising injury,” defined to include “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor.” The Continental D&O policy covered claims for wrongful acts, including “wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right to private occupancy. . . .” Unlike the GNY policy, however, the Continental policy expressly excluded coverage for damage to tangible property. In the underlying action, the plaintiffs alleged that the insured engaged in construction work to fix a leak from a terrace on the seventeenth floor. In doing so, the insured accessed the plaintiffs’ roof terrace. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction workers installed and stored construction materials on the roof terrace, making the plaintiffs unable to access the terrace. Plaintiffs also alleged that their deck furniture may have suffered damage, and that the workers had a “direct line of sight” into their unit, resulting in the plaintiffs having to leave their unit frequently. Causes of action were for property damage, constructive eviction, partial constructive eviction, and invasion of privacy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

February 18, 2019 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Steadfast Insurance Company v. Greenwich Insurance Company, 2019 WL 323702 (Wis. Jan. 25, 2019), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the issue of contribution rights as among co-insurers. Steadfast and Greenwich issued pollution liability policies to different entities that performed sewer-related services for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) at different times. MMSD sought coverage under both policies in connection with underlying claims involving pollution-related loss. Both insurers agreed that MMSD qualified as an additional insured under their respective policies, but Greenwich took the position that its coverage was excess over the coverage afforded under the Steadfast policy, at least for defense purposes, and that as such, it had no defense obligation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

March 14, 2018 — Michael Levine and Geoffrey Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Last month, we reported on the ongoing insurance coverage dispute between commercial landlord KVP Properties, Inc. and its property insurer, Westfield Insurance Company. The dispute arises from an October 2015 DEA raid on KVG-owned rental units in Novi, Michigan, which uncovered damage to the units related to the tenants’ marijuana growing operations. The arguments raised by KVG on appeal highlight a number of important marijuana-related coverage issues, which Westfield has now addressed in opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Levine, Hunton & Williams LLP and Geoffrey Fehling, Hunton & Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

June 17, 2024 — Jason L. Morris & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
The California legislature passed Senate Bill 553 (SB 553) in 2023. This bill requires most California employers to implement a written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and to train employees on the WVPP. At Newmeyer Dillion, we are dedicated to helping you navigate these requirements and maintain a safe, compliant work environment. Act Now: Two Weeks to Comply With SB 553's July 1st compliance deadline, employers have just two weeks to develop and implement a compliant Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP). The clock is ticking, and it is imperative to act swiftly to ensure compliance and protect your employees. What is SB 553? SB 553 is a legislative measure aimed at enhancing workplace safety by mandating specific actions from employers to prevent workplace violence. This bill recognizes the growing concern around workplace violence incidents and the need for proactive measures to maintain a safe workplace. The key components of SB 553 include:

Establishment of a Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP): Employers are required to develop and implement a comprehensive written WVPP tailored to their specific workplace environment and risks.

Reprinted courtesy of Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES