Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Biden’s Buy American Policy & What it Means for Contractors

February 22, 2021 — Meredith Thielbahr & Nicole Lentini - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
January 25, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order (EO) “Ensuring the Future is Made in All America by All of America’s Workers”, which seeks to bolster U.S. manufacturing through the federal procurement process. Note that, just six day earlier, on January 18, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Counsel issued a final rule implementing former President Trump’s July 2019 EO, titled “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials” (EO No. 13881) on the then-current Buy American standards. For context, Trump’s proposed revisions – adopted and implemented by the FAR Council earlier this year – imposed three (3) significant changes worth noting: (1) increasing the percentage of domestic content (other than iron or steel) from 50% to 55% that an end product must contain in order to qualify as a “domestic end product”; (2) implementing an even higher increase in the domestic content requirement for iron and steel products to at least 95% U.S. “predominately” iron or steel product; and (3) increasing the price evaluation preference for domestic offerors from 6% to 20% (for other than small business) and 30% (for small businesses). The FAR’s rule became effective January 21, 2021, and applies to solicitations issued on or after February 22, 2021, and resulting contracts let. Biden’s EO rescinds Trump’s EO No. 13881 “to the extent inconsistent with [Biden’s] EO.” However, when dissected, it is clear Biden’s Buy American plan does little to modify thresholds inconsistent with the Trump Administration; rather, the White House’s latest EO implements changes in the form of BA administration. Nonetheless, Biden’s EO does expressly note that it supersedes and replaces Trump’s EO on the same issues. Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees and Nicole Lentini, Gordon & Rees Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com Ms. Lentini may be contacted at nlentini@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Denied

June 04, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insurer failed to meet its burden on summary judgment seeking a judgment that faulty workmanship precluded coverge. Auto-Owners Ins., Co. v. AAA Discount Homes, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48463 (S.D. Ga. March 19, 2024). Heather Way sued AAA Discount Homes, LLC and Delta Transport & Management, Inc. for manufacturing defects found in a manufactured home which was delivered and assembled by Delta. Way had contracted with AAA for the construction, delivery, assembly, setting, tie down with brick underpinning steps and construction of front and back porches. AAA, assisted by Delta, delivered the home and assembled it, including raising the roof, over the course of a few days. Subsequently, Way discovered extensive water damage and mold in the home. Way alleged that AAA and its subcontractors made careless, unsafe, and unsuccessful attempts at removing the old and repairing the water damage. The presence of chemicals in the home made it uninhabitable. Way alleged the home was improperly assembled by Delta and its negligence resulted in damages. 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

Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

May 20, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, when it comes to insurance, you may hear the argument that you breached your insurance policy by failing to provide your insurer with prompt notice as the insurance policy requires. Well, this is not such an absolute issue. With that said, you should absolutely provide your insurer with prompt notice of a claim or loss. No legitimate reason not to. But, if you don’t, it is not an absolute get out of jail free card for your insurer, but it does give them a good argument, which you don’t really want to deal with. In Gulfpoint Construction Co., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1759228 (11th Cir. 2024), an insured appealed a trial court’s ruling that found it did not provide prompt notice to its property insurer as the policy required. In this case, notice was provided two years after a loss from a hurricane. The insurer denied coverage and, in doing so, relied on the insured’s failure to provide prompt notice. Although the trial court agreed, the appellate court found this was a genuine issue of material fact. 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

2017 California Employment Law Update

January 13, 2017 — Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law Blog
Below are some of the new laws going into effect this year that affect the construction industry. Unless otherwise noted, the laws go into effect on January 1, 2017. Public Works and Prevailing Wages You can read more about the new laws—AB 326, AB 1926 and SB 954—relating to public works and prevailing wages in an earlier blog post. Employment Contracts Choice of Forum and Choice of Law. Under SB 1241, an employer cannot require an employee who primarily works and resides in California to agree to file a lawsuit or bring a claim in another state when the claim arises in California. This is usually referred to as the choice of forum clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Ms. Bailey may be contacted at ebailey@wendel.com

Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions

November 01, 2021 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A Miami developer is suing the general contractor it hired to build a 22-story mixed-use tower in Boston’s trendy Seaport District, alleging construction delays cost it $4.9 million in lost revenue. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

July 13, 2020 — Brian J Clifford - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
An Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage. In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:

Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.

Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.

Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com

How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far? In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

October 27, 2016 — Daniel E. Levin – Florida Construction Law News
In Evanston Insurance Company v. Dimucci Development Corportion of Ponce Inlet, Inc., the United states District Court for the Middle District of Florida further clarified the standard CGL policy exclusion (L) – the “Your Work” exclusion, one of the several business risk exclusions in a standard CGL policy which insurers and insureds are most likely to encounter in a typical construction defect claim. No. 6:15-cv-486-Orl-37DAB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678, at *26 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2016). The lawsuit between Evanston Insurance Company and DiMucci Development Corp. of Ponce Inlet Inc. (“DiMucci”) arose out of initial claims by the homeowners’ association at the Towers Grande high rise in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, against DiMucci for various construction defect related issues. The lawsuit alleged that DiMucci’s work was defective on a portion of the high rise condominium project, which caused property damage to other elements of the building that DiMucci was also responsible for constructing. Specifically, pertinent here, the Association alleged water damage as a result of DiMucci’s improper waterproofing of the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel E. Levin, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Levin may be contacted at daniel.levin@csklegal.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES