Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

November 21, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A collapsed floor in a restaurant was found to be covered. J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163661 (D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2022). J&J Fish rented property from Vision. Vision was obligated to keep the premises insured under an all-risk policy. Vision was also responsible for maintaining and repairing the property "including the slab flooring exterior walls of the premises." Vision never obtained insurance on the building, but J&J Fish secured a commercial property policy from Crum & Forster. On May 29, 2020, approximately 25% of the building's slab floor, the section beneath the walk-in cooler, collapsed into the crawl space below. Dr. Daniel Wojnowski inspected the crawl space and observed overall dampness as well as a pool of water in the space. He concluded that the collapse occurred because the steel support beams and steel elements of the floor corroded after prolonged exposure to moisture. Based on this report, Crum & Forster denied coverage. J&J Fish sued and the parties moved for summary judgment. 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

PSA: Pay If Paid Ban Goes into Effect on January 1, 2023

December 05, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have written a couple of times here at Musings regarding the new pay-if-paid legislation passed by the General Assembly last session. While the statute has some inconsistencies and a working group has made some recommendations, the legislation as passed will go into effect on January 1, 2023, without any changes (at least until next session). As always, such action by our legislature here in Virginia will create work for construction attorneys assisting their clients to amend contracts to meet the new rules. Essentially (and with minor inconsistencies between public and private contracts), the bill requires that any construction contract entered into after January 1, 2023 have the following provisions:

On public projects: A payment clause that obligates a contractor on a construction contract to be liable for the entire amount owed to any subcontractor with which it contracts. Such contractor shall not be liable for amounts otherwise reducible due to the subcontractor’s noncompliance with the terms of the contract. However, in the event that the contractor withholds all or a part of the amount promised to the subcontractor under the contract, the contractor shall notify the subcontractor, in writing, of his intention to withhold all or a part of the subcontractor’s payment with the reason for nonpayment.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

May 30, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O Partner Tyler D. Offenhauser and Senior Associate Kevin B. Wheeler prevailed on their Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) on behalf of a public entity, the City of Murrieta Fire Department today! As a matter of background, authorities were first called to a residence in Murrieta after a report of a gas line rupture. Firefighters and Southern California Gas Company responded to the call. As a crew from SoCalGas was trying to shut off the gas an explosion happened, leveling the home and killing 31-year-old SoCalGas employee Wade Kilpatrick. 30 surrounding homeowners have now alleged personal injuries, including TBI, as a result of the explosion. News agencies reported that Plaintiff Anthony Borel sustained a severe head injury and was placed in a coma. Plaintiff’s injuries included an epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, bilateral corneal abrasions, right orbital fracture, right temporal fracture, right maxillary fracture, frontal skull fracture, 18% partial-thickness burns to the face, abdomen, arms and legs, and a severe TBI with cognitive deficiencies. Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $20,000,000.00. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

HOA Foreclosure Excess Sale Proceeds Go to Owner

August 15, 2022 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Over the last few years, the Arizona Court of Appeals wrestled with the question of who should receive the excess proceeds from a foreclosure sale. We’ve blogged about some these past unreported decisions here and here. Those decisions, somewhat inexplicably, required excess sale proceeds to be paid to senior creditors. As we noted at the time, these unreported (and non-precedential) decisions did not seem to make much sense in the context of debtor/creditor rights. Thankfully, a reported opinion finally sets the record straight. Excess sale proceeds should be paid downstream. In Tortosa Homeowners Assoc. v. Garcia, et al., No. 2 CA-CV 2021-0114 (Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2022), the Court of Appeals held that after the foreclosing lienholder is paid in full, then the excess sale proceeds should be paid to claimants in the order of their priority after the foreclosing lienholder. In other words, if a junior lienholder forecloses, then any creditors behind (i.e., junior to) the foreclosing creditor should be paid, and if all such creditors are paid, then the rest should be given to the owner. Creditors senior to the foreclosing creditor should not be paid anything from the foreclosure sale. This makes sense from a policy perspective, because the senior creditor retains its lien against the property and the bidder presumably took the presence of the senior lien into account when it made its bid for the foreclosed property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

February 04, 2013 — Tred R. Eyerly
Although the insurer failed to understand the pertinent law that mandated coverage under the policy, its actions did not rise to an unfair claim settlement practice justifying multiple damages. Gelwan v. Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. app. LEXIS 210 (2nd Cir. Jan. 4, 2013). In 1999, a contractor re-roofed the insureds' home. The job was poorly done, and an imperfect seal was created. Over several years, various structures within the house were damaged by water, which caused the rotting of structural beams and joists. The insureds sued for coverage under their homeowners policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
te@hawaiilawyer.com

Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

October 19, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (No. E064518; filed 9/29/17), a California appeals court ruled that after Continental was ultimately held to pay its policy limits for remediation of the Stringfellow hazardous waste site, the insured State of California was entitled to mandatory prejudgment interest on the full amount dating back to 1998, when a federal district court had issued a judgment under F.R.C.P. 54 declaring the State liable under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and state law. To get there, the state appeals court held that vertical exhaustion applied to the attachment of Continental’s excess policies. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

February 15, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . . Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill – The Law Officeof Christopher G. Hill, PC

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES