CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

May 20, 2019 — Baxter Byrd - Construction Executive
Leading edge hazards are often misunderstood and overlooked on today’s highly visible jobsites. Evidence is readily available via images shared on construction-related social media accounts. In the context of people showing pride for the hard work they do or the extreme conditions under which they work, posts offer glimpses into the methods employed to mitigate fall hazards. Alarmingly, many of these methods do not adhere to industry-accepted standards, especially in the case of leading edge applications. Mincing Words The definition of “leading edge” itself has undergone somewhat of a transformation since its introduction by OSHA to its current use by ANSI in the Z359.14-2014 “Safety Requirements for Self-Retracting Devices for Personal Fall Arrest and Rescue Systems” standard. OSHA defines a leading edge as an “unprotected side or edge during periods when it is actively or continuously under construction,” giving many the impression that a leading edge was a temporary condition found only during the construction of a structure. Reprinted courtesy of Baxter Byrd, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Byrd may be contacted at info@puresafetygroup.com

---

Substitute Materials — What Are Your Duties? What Are Your Risks? (Law Note)

June 27, 2022 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
In managing a project as the design professional, you are called upon to wear many hats. One of those hats is that of material specifier and, at times, substitute material approver. What are your duties in looking at substitute materials? As always, the legal answer is “it depends”. In part, it will depend on your role on the project and what, specifically, the contract says. However, at its most basic, you can be sued for accepting an out of spec substitute material. This is so even if you believed the spec met requirements based on information that the contractor gave you. So, tread carefully in this area. Do not assume any information that the contractor presents to you– take the time to research for yourself, call the manufacturer, and otherwise ensure that the product will work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A Pennsylvania contractor in prison for fraud has been convicted with insurance fraud. The York Daily Record reports that Steven D. Gebhart was already in jail for fraud for about $350,000 for work he either failed to finish or even start or by using substandard materials and practices when he was convicted of insurance fraud. Gebbert’s offices were destroyed in a fire that was later determined to be arson. He was not charged with this, but instead for overestimating his losses to the insurance company. Sentencing for the fraud charge will be on December 21.

Read the full story…

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

---

Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.



The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.



Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.



Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.



However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Storm Lake, Iowa completed a $3.6 million sewer project only year ago, but the system is leaking untreated water into residents properties. The Pilot-Tribune reports that “not all the sewage lines broke,” but the city still needed to check the entire system for damage. The Southwest Shoreline Sanitary District has filed a lawsuit against Lessard Contracting, the firm that built the system. Bob Bergendoff, one of the sanitary district trustees said that “the main thing right now is whether the lines are properly installed.” Steve Anderson, another trustee, said that discussions with Lessard are getting “next to nowhere.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors

April 25, 2022 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Strategist
In United States Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch., et al., No. 21A-CT-580, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 87 (Automatic Sprinkler), the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals) considered whether there is a privity requirement for property damage claims against contractors. The court imposed a privity requirement. The court also addressed whether a subrogation waiver in a contract with a tenant applied to damage caused by work done outside the contract, at the landlord’s request. The court held that the waiver did not apply. In this case, United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) contracted with a tenant (Contract Tenant) to inspect and test a sprinkler system at a commercial building in Indiana. The contract included a waiver of subrogation provision. The building landlord subsequently hired Automatic Sprinkler to repair a leak in the sprinkler system. After completing the repairs, the system failed and flooded the building, causing significant property damage to several tenancies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

May 11, 2020 — Marc Casarino, Lori Smith & Gwenn Barney - White and Williams LLP
The COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Marc Casarino, Lori Smith and Gwenn Barney Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
I have written numerous articles regarding the challenge in proving lost profit damages. Yes, lost profits are a form of damages in business disputes, but they are a form of damages that are subject to a certain degree of conjecture and speculation. For this reason, lost profit evidence is oftentimes precluded from being presented at trial or lost profit damages are reversed on appeal. This is why it is imperative to ensure i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed when it comes to proving lost profit damages. It is also imperative, when defending a lost profit claim, to put on evidence and establish the speculative nature of the lost profit damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---