CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

December 31, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

November 19, 2021 — Marc Champion - Bloomberg
You may not have noticed unless you live in London, but protesters have been gluing their hands to the asphalt of the city’s thundering eight-lane M25 ring road, to the weirdly technocratic war cry of “Insulate Britain!” Frustrated commuters and the police officers who’ve had to peel these sticky activists from the road find them irritating. Yet they have a point. Among top producers of climate-harming emissions that world leaders plan to address at COP26 in Glasgow in November, buildings are the summit’s largely ignored Cinderella. Making homes and offices leak less heat and persuading the construction industry to give up its addiction to demolition and to energy-intensive materials such as concrete, plastics, and steel have so far proved less than appealing to governments in search of solutions to the climate challenge. Retrofitting is costly and disruptive for the voters who happen to live, in the U.K. alone, in the 28 million homes that need an upgrade. It also demands the systemic transformation of a fragmented industry that’s riddled with vested interests, says Stephen Good, chief executive of the Construction Scotland Innovation Centre along Glasgow’s southern underbelly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marc Champion, Bloomberg

---

A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

October 11, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

---

How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

May 20, 2019 — Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

---

Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In July, Pamar Enterprises was constructing a water main in Bad Axe, Michigan and an error on their part sent water and sewage into homes. This was similar to what happened when they constructed a water main in 2007 in Lyon Township. Now Michigan Representative Terry Brown wants the state to stop awarding contracts to Pamar until the lawsuits are resolved. “I’ve asked [the Michigan Department of Transportation] not to have any more contracts with Pamar,” said Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown is also seeking that the state withholds payments to Pamar. “I was assured that they would not be getting any more payments until the situation was satisfactorily resolved.” In the 2007 case, Pamar won in Oakland County Circuit Court, but the Michigan Court of Appeals, found that Pamar failed in its “duty to exercise reasonable care when it entered onto an altered private property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

October 26, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
Would you believe me if I told you that this year could have been worse for builders? Had COVID-19 not hit, the Colorado Legislature may have passed bills that would have had a severely negative impact on the home building industry. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature temporarily adjourned in mid-March, 67 days into the 120-day legislative session. After a two-month recess, the Legislature returned for approximately one month to pass critical bills including the state budget, the school finance act and what to do with the money from the federal CARES Act. Of the bills on the calendar when the Legislature temporarily adjourned, legislators focused on those that were “fast, free, and friendly,” and let the others fall by the wayside. Bills that died included SB 20-138, which would have extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims from six plus two years to 10 plus two years. The bill also contained a number of accrual and tolling provisions, which would have made it harder for builders to convince tribunals that claims were untimely. This bill died on the Senate floor, for lack of support. We will see whether plaintiffs’ attorneys will revive this effort next year. SB 20-093, while not an outright ban on arbitration or a legislative overturning of the Vallagio decision, would have made it harder to administer and more difficult to get cases into arbitration. The bill died under the “fast, free, and friendly” test, i.e., it faced too much opposition. I expect to see this bill again next year, in some form. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

June 09, 2016 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
This article pertains to needed condominium construction defect warranty reform legislation that the Maryland Legislature has been reluctant to enact into law. Below is an explanation of the legislation and a list of practical steps CAI members can take to support the legislation during the upcoming 2017 legislative session. Background The warranty reform legislation was unsuccessfully introduced during the 2016 legislative session as “Senate Bill 250” (“SB 250”) and “House Bill 1170” (“HB 1170”). Both bills were identical, one being filed in the Senate and the other in the House of Delegates. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

---