Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

January 03, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
With the enactment of this important legislation, its impact on environmental regulation and policy will be carefully analyzed by the regulated community. Such a review may be hampered by the fact that the law is not only complex but also very long (over 2000 pages!). The Infrastructure Act is mostly an appropriations and authorization law, but it includes many new policy choices. This is a brief review (which can only scratch the surface of this law) of some of the many environmentally related provisions, which are part of this new law and can be located in the pdf version of the law. The law is composed of nine separate divisions, which are further divided into separate titles and subtitles. Division A is entitled “Surface Transportation”; Division B is the “Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021”; Division C is “Transit”; Division D is “Energy”; Division E is “Drinking Water and Wastewater”; Division F is “Broadband”; Division G is “Other Authorizations”; Division H is “Revenue Provisions”; Division I is “Other Matters”; Division J is “Appropriations”; and Division K is “Minority Business Development.” It is somewhat bewildering on first reading, as befits a law that is expressing the manifold policy decisions made by the Congress. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

December 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. 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

Whitney Stefko Named to ENR’s Top Young Professionals, formerly ENR’s Top 20 Under 40, in California

February 16, 2017 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Every year, Engineering News-Record (ENR) honors young professionals who are making a big splash in the construction industry. This year, ENR named Whitney Stefko to its list of individuals who represent the best of the best in the construction industry. In its feature article, “Top Young Professionals Make a Big Impact in Construction Industry,” Stefko is recognized for her expertise in professional liability and construction defense law, and her success in representing hundreds of cases on behalf of developers, general contractors, subcontractors and design professionals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com

Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

February 26, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Where the building was damaged by both a covered cause and a non-covered cause, the policy's anti-concurrent/anti-sequential causation clause barred coverage for a collapsed building. Ashrit Realty LLC v. Tower Nat'l Ins. Co., 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 107 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 20, 2015). The property sustained moderate damage during a storm on August 14, 2011. More extensive damage was caused by Hurricane Irene two weeks later. After the hurricane, a large hole formed due to the collapse of a pipe which ran underneath the property. Once the pipe collapsed, leaking water caused substantial soil erosion, which led to the collapse of the rear portion of the building. 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

Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

December 20, 2017 — Zachary Price & Lawrence Zucker
In California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District (Nos. A146166, 146405, filed 12/15/17), the First District Court of Appeal held that a prevailing party was entitled to an award of contractual attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1717 even though the underlying contracts were declared void under Government Code §1090. Appellant Marina Coast Water District (“Marina”) and Respondent Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“Monterey”), both public water agencies, and Respondent California-American Water Company (“California-American”), a water utility, entered into several contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project. The parties agreed that the prevailing party of any action in any way arising from their agreements would be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at zprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

March 19, 2024 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The City of Pittsburgh’s failure to act for more than a decade on repeated maintenance and repair recommendations regarding the Fern Hollow Bridge was the probable cause for the structure’s dramatic 2022 collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said at its Feb. 21, 2024, meeting. The city is the owner of the bridge. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, 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

Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?

March 16, 2020 — J. Kelby Van Patten & Jared De Jong - Payne & Fears
How bad will the pandemic get? How much will it spread in the United States? Will we develop a vaccine in time to do any good? As insurance lawyers, we have no idea. But we can help you figure out whether your business is insured for the coronavirus risks that keep business owners up at night. Risk 1: An outbreak forces my business to close until the outbreak ends. Are my financial business losses covered? Maybe. Many commercial property policies provide “business interruption coverage” which may apply. This coverage typically requires that: (i) Your business is shut down. If your business actually closes for a period of time, you may meet this requirement. However, you wouldn’t meet it if your business slows because half of your staff is home sick. (ii) The shutdown is necessary. “Necessary” means something different than “desirable” or “prudent.” Whether a shutdown is necessary depends on the facts. If it is physically or legally impossible to enter your building, then closure is necessary. But if the government issues a public advisory recommending that businesses close, and you voluntarily comply, that’s a different story. (iii) The shutdown is caused by physical damage to your property. Is a viral outbreak “damage” to your property? There’s not a clear answer. On the one hand, courts have found that hazardous contamination of a building constitutes property damage to the building. For example, asbestos incorporated into a building constitutes property damage to the building under a commercial general liability policy. Environmental contamination can also constitute property damage to the contaminated property. Policyholders whose businesses close during an outbreak will argue that property contaminated by the virus satisfies the “physical damage to property” requirement. On the other hand, insurers may argue that the real cause of the shutdown is not the contaminated building surfaces, but the need for social distancing in a neighborhood with many contagious people. Coverage will depend on the policy language and the details of the shutdown. Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears and Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears Mr. Van may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko of Haight Brown & Bonesteel analyzed the Beacon decision, and discussed how it affects developers and general contractors: “On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES