CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

January 25, 2021 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Andrews Kurth
New Jersey’s highest court heard arguments Monday in the appeal of a ruling that the New Jersey Transit Corp.’s (“NJ Transit”) insurers are required to insure $400 million of water damage loss caused by Hurricane Sandy. The matter stems from an insurance claim NJ Transit made after the super storm rocked the East Coast in 2012. NJ Transit claimed over $400 million in losses as a result of damage to its tracks, bridges, tunnels and power stations. In response, its tower of property insurers took the position that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to limit NJ Transit’s recovery under its insurance tower, not the policy’s $400 million overall limits.NJ Transit filed a coverage action in state court. The trial court granted summary judgment to NJ Transit, holding that NJ Transit was entitled to full coverage of $400 million under the tower’s named windstorm coverage. The insurers appealed, again arguing that the flood sublimit applied to the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

November 21, 2017 — Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Originally published by CDJ on February 16, 2017 In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

February 14, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fights between owners and contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7031 can get nasty and detailed. An owner’s remedy under Section 7031, as courts have stated, can be “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and even “unjust” and damages can be significant. Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 289216 (2022), a case decided this past month, is no different. It even involved a disagreement between the very justices deciding the case. The Panterra GP Case Panterra GP, Inc. was a licensed general contractor. Rosedale Bakersfield Retail VI, LLC and Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC intended to hire Panterra GP to perform renovation work at the Studio Movie Grill in Bakersfield, California, but drafted a construction contract mistakenly listing Panterra Development Ltd., LLP as the contractor on the project. Panterra GP was the general partner of Panterra Development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Anaheim, California city council selected Turner Construction Company “to manage a $180 million expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center, a venue that hosted 238 tradeshows, conventions, meetings and consumer events in 2013,” according to Construction Digital. “Turner’s Southern California office calls Anaheim home, and we are pleased to be working on such a great project in our own backyard,” Kevin Dow, Vice President and General Manager of Turner’s Southern California office told Construction Digital. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

August 29, 2018 — Todd M. Heffner - Smith Currie
Most construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd M. Heffner, Smith Currie
Mr. Heffner may be contacted at tmheffner@smithcurrie.com

---

Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

September 14, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (No. B272387; filed 8/31/17) (Montrose III), a California appeals court found that excess insurance is not triggered for continuous and progressive losses until there has been horizontal exhaustion of underlying insurance, but there is no “universal horizontal exhaustion” because the order or sequence in which excess policies may be accessed depends on the specific policy wording at issue. The coverage lawsuit was initiated by Montrose in 1990, when it was named in environmental actions for continuous and progressive property damage emanating from its Torrance chemical plant since the 1960s. Montrose had varying levels of insurance coverage throughout, but the total limits and attachment points of differing levels of excess coverage in any given year had changed from year-to-year. The coverage action was stayed in 2006 due to concern of prejudice to the underlying defense, but the stay was lifted in 2014 with Montrose entering a consent decree in the CERCLA action. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

May 26, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

An arbitration panel has ruled that problems with the Idaho home of actors Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were not due to construction defects but rather to “poor design and bad architectural advice.” The couple had settled with the architectural firm, Lake Flato of San Antonio, Texas for $900,000 and was subsequently seeking $3 million from Storey Construction of Ketchum, Idaho.

Problems with the couple’s home “included leaking roofs, inadequate drainage, fireplaces that did not vent properly and an inadequate air-conditioning system. In 2003, sliding snow from the roof damaged kitchen windows and roof components.”

The arbitration panel, according to the report in the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, noted that “Hanks and Wilson were responsible for the full $167,623 cost of arbitration, but further denied a Storey Construction counterclaim that alleged Hanks and Wilson filed their claim out of malice.”

Read the full story…

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

---

Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. 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

---