Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

June 06, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the homeowner policy's sub-limit for water damage included tear-out costs. Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Vazquez, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1205 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2022). A discharge of water from the cast iron pipes caused damage to the home. The water escaped as a result of the failed cast iron pipes due to wear and tear, deterioration, and corrosion. The insurer acknowledged coverage for the water damage and paid $10,000 under the Limited Water Damage Endorsement (LWD Endorsement). The provision recited that "'[t]he limit of liability for all damage to covered property provided by this endorsement is $10,000 per loss." The insureds' suit argued they were entitled to additional benefits for the cost to tear out and replace a part of the concrete slab - an action necessary to reach the corroded pipes. The parties stipulated that the cost of the tear-out would be $40,000. The parties agreed that the LWD Endorsement provided coverage of both water damage and tear-out costs. They also agreed that the cost to repair and/or replace the corroded pipes was not covered. They disagreed, however, over the proper interpretation of the limitation of liability provision in the LWD Endorsement. The insured argued that the $10,000 limit applied to both water damage and tear-out costs. The insureds argued that the $10,00 limit applied only to water damage to covered property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

October 15, 2014 — Greg Quinn – Bloomberg
Canadian existing home sales fell from a four-year high in September (TNBHICY%), the first decline in eight months, led by Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta. Sales fell 1.4 percent to 41,666 units, the Canadian Real Estate Association said today from Ottawa. From a year earlier sales rose 10.6 percent and the average price climbed 5.9 percent to C$408,795 ($362,100). The decline came in part because of a shortage of “affordably priced single family homes,” Beth Crosbie, CREA President, said in the report. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Quinn, Bloomberg
Mr. Quinn may be contacted at gquinn1@bloomberg.net

No Coverage for Collapse of Building

January 04, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Damage to a building caused by the break of a water pipe was not a collapse under the policy. Naabani Twin Stars v. Travelers Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196443 (D. N. M. Oct. 22, 2020). An underground water line ruptured on plaintiffs property This caused a collapse under the adjacent parking lot, which in turn caused land beneath the building go change positions and damage the building. A geotechnical consultant concluded that a material change in the site conditions occurred as a direct result of the rupture of the water pipe in the parking lot, and that those changes directly affected the settlement of the building. Travelers denied coverage for the damage. Travelers concluded that the building settlement was the result of subsurface movement, which invoked the earth movement exclusion. Travelers inspection concluded that the building was not in a state of collapse. The policy defined collapse as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or structure, or any part of a building or structure, with the result that the building, or part of the building, cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

February 18, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Baral v. Schnitt (filed 2/5/2015, No. B253620), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that California’s anti-SLAPP statute does not authorize the striking of allegations of protected activity in a cause of action that also contains meritorious allegations of non-protected activity not within the purview of the statute. In so holding, the court attempted to resolve, or at least add its voice to, the growing conflict among appellate districts on the issue. A SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) seeks to chill or punish the exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. California’s Legislature enacted the anti-SLAPP statute to permit a defendant to file a special motion to strike as to any cause of action that arises out of an act in furtherance of such rights. In Baral, the plaintiff alleged that his business partner had violated fiduciary duties in usurping the plaintiff’s ownership and management interests in their jointly owned company, so that the defendant could benefit from a secret sale of the company. The complaint alleged that the defendant hired a public accounting firm and prevented the plaintiff from participating in its investigation in order to force the plaintiff's cooperation of the sale of the company. The defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, seeking to strike all references to the accounting firm's audit. The trial court denied the motion, on the ground that the anti-SLAPP statute applies to causes of action, not allegations. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Blythe Golay Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com. Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

May 17, 2021 — Copernicus T. Gaza, Adam Krauss, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson & Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
The New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):

Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or

Reprinted courtesy of Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman, Adam Krauss, Traub Lieberman, Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman, Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com Mr. Krauss may be contacted at akrauss@tlsslaw.com Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Mr Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2021 Real Estate Trends: New Year, New Reality—A Day of Reckoning for Borrowers and Tenants

February 08, 2021 — Robert J. Grados & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On the one-year anniversary of China’s Wuhan lockdown, COVID-19 has become a part of everyday life and as we enter the new year, real estate borrowers and lenders alike will need to understand this new normal and face the reality that is fast approaching. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the United States, many state and local governments instituted eviction moratoria and other protections for real estate tenants and borrowers. These protections created a window of opportunity for tenants and borrowers to negotiate reasonable solutions with their respective landlords and lenders regarding rent and debt payments amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This temporary period of restricted remedies also allowed courts to analyze legal arguments on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts the real estate industry. However, with court rulings forthcoming and many of these eviction protections set to expire in 2021, landlords and tenants as well as borrowers and lenders will be forced to have discussions regarding the realities of their industry and their ability to pay their respective rents and mortgages amid the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Throughout 2020, lenders and landlords were forced to accommodate workout negotiations as their ability to evict or foreclose upon defaulting tenants or borrowers was prohibited. Many commercial real estate parties were able to come to agreements on what borrowers and tenants were able to pay, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their respective industries. As the legal protections are rolled back and the leverage shifts back into the hands of the lenders and landlords, we will likely see a trend of aggressive landlords and lenders and an increased number of evictions and foreclosures, especially in industries that are most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic: retail and hospitality. Reprinted courtesy of Robert J. Grados, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Grados may be contacted at robert.grados@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

June 26, 2023 — Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Summary of the new law as it pertains to builders of new homes: The existing 10-year statute of repose for builders of new homes (the ultimate cut-off date for filing suit) has been shortened to 6 years if the builder provides a 1-2-6 written warranty (1-year workmanship and materials; 2-year plumbing, electrical and HVAC; 6-year structural). Extended time to bring suit if written claim presented during the period of repose: If a written claim for damages, contribution, or indemnity is presented to the builder during the applicable limitations period and the 6-year statute of repose applies, the time to sue is extended one year from the date the claim is presented. In practical effect, this means that if a written claim is presented and the statute of repose expires before suit is filed, suit may still be filed provided it is within one year of the date the written claim was made. When the new law goes into effect: The new law is effective as of June 9, 2023 and applies to suits commenced on or after that date. However, if the contract under which the claim is brought was entered into before June 9, 2023, the former 10-year version of the statute of repose applies. In other words, the statute applies to contracts entered into on or after June 9, 2023, if the contract has at least a 1-2-6 warranty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at kaltsuler@pecklaw.com

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

January 11, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer was unsuccessful in seeking to dismiss business interruption claims due to COVID-19 under a pollution policy. New York Botanical Garden v. Allied World Assur., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.15, 2021). The insured was forced to cease operation after executive orders by the governor and mayor were issued in March 2020. The insured also had to reduce its in-person workforce by 100%. The insured's claim for business interruption and contingent business interruption were denied by Allied. The insured sued for a declaratory judgment. Allied moved to dismiss, arguing that the executive orders were issued for prophylactic reasons in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. They were not issued solely to address the presence of COVID-19 at any non-insured owned location, but were issued broadly to limit the risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus. The insured responded that its broader pollution liability policy was not a typical civil authority policy that required the physical loss or damage to property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES