CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

October 12, 2020 — Todd Likman - Colorado Construction Litigation
As is often the case in construction defect and other insurance defense litigation, a plaintiff’s claims for relief typically encompass both covered and uncovered damages. Obviously, it is in the insured’s best interests to have as many damages covered by insurance as possible. From the insurer’s perspective and against the backdrop of owing duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds, however, it is generally better to have an allocation of covered vs. non-covered damages. This places the insurer, insured, and insurance retained defense counsel in a difficult position. A recent opinion from U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Rockhill Ins. Co. v. CFI-Global Fisheries Mgmt, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-02760-RM-MJW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35209 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2020), sheds light on the issue, even though some may feel it only further muddies already murky waters. Rockhill involved review of an arbitration proceeding that property-owner, Heirloom I, LLC (“Heirloom”) filed against CFI-Global Fisheries Management (“CFI”). Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill Insurance”) was asked to defend the arbitration as CFI’s professional and general liability insurer. At issue in the arbitration was Heirloom’s claim that CFI defectively designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement that was destroyed by natural processes four times in three years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Likman may be contacted at likman@hhmrlaw.com

---

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/22/24) – Federal Infrastructure Money, Hotel Development Pipelines, and Lab Space Construction

June 17, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, Virginia’s governor signs two bills into law, $929 billion in outstanding commercial mortgages come due, banks prepare for delinquencies related to office space, and more!

• Demand for lab space is set to ramp up, with market activity expected to increase in the coming months. (Joe Burns, Construction Dive)
• Federal infrastructure money is keeping the country’s infrastructure woes from getting worse, but that progress will be lost when that funding ends. (Julie Strupp, Construction Dive)
• In the first quarter of 2024, several major hotel companies saw their revenues down—or lower than expected—but their development pipelines were up. (Jenna Walters, Hotel Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

May 17, 2021 — Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction Executive
Direct damage to property under construction caused by faulty or defective work or defective materials has been a coverage issue for decades. Two specific policies, the Commercial General Liability for the contractors building the structure and the Builders Risk Policy on the project both are sources of potential coverage. A CGL policy protects the named insured (the contractor in this case) from third party liability arising out of the insured’s operations that results in either bodily injury or property damage. Damage to property caused by poor workmanship or defective materials would qualify as property damage. To understand how the CGL policy might respond to claims such as these, it is necessary to evaluate several exclusions in the CGL policy. CGL policies cover “property damage,” defined as physical injury to tangible property, including loss of use of such property, and loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injured. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

July 01, 2019 — Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Florida contractors will soon have a level playing field, at least related to the right to recovery of attorney fees in certain circumstances. Effective October 1, 2019, the Florida statute by which legal fees may be recovered from insurers and sureties was amended to expressly afford that right to contractors. Florida’s Insurance statute, Chapter 627, affords a right to recovery of attorney fees when a judgment is obtained against an insurer and in favor of any insured pursuant to a policy or contract executed by the insurer. See Fla. Stat. § 627.428. In the construction context, the Florida Legislature has also applied this right to the recovery of attorney fees from sureties, for example in circumstances where suit is brought against a surety under a payment or performance bond. See Fla. Stat. § 627.756. But there was an oddity to this statute – it specifically provided this right for “owners” and “subcontractors”, but “contractors” were skipped over. For as long as Section 627.756, Florida Statutes has been on the books, the right to recovery of attorney fees against a surety under a payment or performance bond was only afforded to owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen. Specifically, since at least 1977, Section 627.756, Florida Statutes substantially provided as follows (emphasis added): Section 627.428 applies to suits brought by owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract. Owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Friedman may be contacted at wfriedman@pecklaw.com

---

Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

August 17, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

June 10, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Linda Halderman (R-Fresno) has introduced a bill which would require lawyers soliciting clients for construction defect cases to provide their prospective clients with a statement including that sellers may be required to disclose that they were engaged in a construction lawsuit. Further, the bill would require lawyers to disclose that they cannot guarantee financial recovery.



Halderman was quoted by The Business Journal as saying, “Lawsuit abuse has been very damaging, especially to homeowners in the Valley.” Halderman hopes that her bill will discourage class action lawsuits against builders and that this will protect jobs in the construction industry.



Read the full story…

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

---

US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

March 27, 2019 — Mary B. Powers and Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
What may be the nation’s largest dam removal project—delayed for years by regulatory and legal disputes of a utility, stakeholders and states over licensing and environmental permits—now may have new momentum after a hard-hitting January federal appeals court ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

October 24, 2023 — Laura Paris Paton - Gordon Rees Construction Law Blog
Could the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration. This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Paton may be contacted at lpaton@grsm.com

---