Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

February 07, 2018 — Craig Wallace – Smith Currie
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
Mr. Wallace may be contacted at swwallace@smithcurrie.com

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Known Loss Doctrine & Interpretation of “Occurrence”

March 06, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In this final post in the Blog’s Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series, we discuss the court’s ruling on the known loss doctrine and its interpretation of “occurrence” in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). Personal injury claims against the State of Montana arose out of its alleged failure to warn Libby residents about the danger of asbestos exposure despite the State’s regulatory inspections of the Libby Mine as early as the 1950s and through the 1970s. Among other defenses, the insurer contended that there was no coverage for these claims because the asbestos claims arising out of the Libby Mine were a “known loss.” A “known loss” defense, as the court explained, is “not based upon a provision of the Policy, but a common law principle which courts have imposed upon liability policies” that “requires that losses arise without the insureds’ knowledge.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

June 13, 2018 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
Under Florida’s construction-related statute of repose, Fla. Stat. § 95.11, actions based on the design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property are barred if not commenced within 10 years after the later of several possible dates, including the date of actual possession by the owner and the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Florida Legislature recently amended the statute to extend the time within which defendants subject to a suit filed close to the end of the 10-year period can file claims. Under the revised law, a defendant can file “counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party claims up to 1 year after the pleading to which such claims relate is served.” Regardless of when the cause of action at issue accrued, the law applies to actions commenced on or after July 1, 2018, except that any action that would not have been barred under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c) prior to the amendment may be commenced before July 1, 2019. The revised law provides relief to defendants because, under the prior law, they had to file claims against other potentially responsible third parties before the expiration of the statute of repose. Under the new law, defendants can bring third parties into the action after the expiration of the 10-year statute of repose period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

October 21, 2019 — Johanna Knapschaefer - Engineering News-Record
A natural gas leak in explosive range forced Lawrence, Mass. residents to evacuate their homes early on Sept. 27, according to electric utility National Grid, which cut power to more than 1,300 customers to avoid another disaster like last year's natural gas explosions and fires in Lawrence and two other towns north of Boston. The leak came just days after federal officials called for changes to national pipeline regulations as they released a final report on the causes of the Sept. 13, 2018, disaster. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Surplus Lines Carriers Cannot Compel Arbitration in Louisiana

May 29, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the surplus lines insurer's motion to compel arbitration based on Lousiana's law prohibiting arbitrations of coverage disputes. Fairway Village Condominiums v. Independent Spec. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62135 (E.D. La. April 20, 2023). The plaintiff's condominium complex was damaged by Hurricane Ida. A claim was filed with the insurer. The insurer made an initial advance payment of $200,000. Three additional payments were made bringing the total to $951,462.49, which was less than half of the proof of loss amounts submitted by plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer filed a motion to compel arbitration based upon an arbitration provision in the policy. Recognizing that Louisiana law prohibited enforcement of a policy's arbitration clause, the insurer argued it did not apply because it was a surplus lines carrier. 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

U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016

November 17, 2016 — Jeffrey M. Daitz & Joseph Vento – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On September 28, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued a new rule that bans federal funding to any nursing home that requires its residents to enter mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements upon admission. The rule prevents nursing homes from forcing residents to submit any disputes concerning care, payment for services, etc., to mandatory binding arbitration rather than to a court. Mandatory arbitration agreements are frequently used in many types of industries and have been for decades. However, recent eff orts by several consumer advocate groups have sought to curtail the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in industries where the individuals who executed such agreements have little to no bargaining power. According to these groups, nursing home residents are potentially more vulnerable than most to being unwittingly bound by such agreements because of the nature of the admissions process. The new rule is set to take effect on November 28, 2016, and will only apply to agreements entered into after that date. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Daitz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph Vento, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Daitz may be contacted at jdaitz@pecklaw.com Mr. Vento may be contacted at jvento@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

September 23, 2019 — Ashley L. Cooper - SDV Insights
A recent Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in, Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Owners Association, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743 (2019), strengthens Illinois’ precedent favoring construction defects as an occurrence under a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. Acuity also broadens an insurance carrier’s obligation to defend its insured against construction defect allegations. In Acuity, the court determined whether claims for construction defect filed against a subcontractor, triggered a duty to defend under a CGL policy. To make its determination, the court focused on the subcontractor’s scope of work. The court notes that a subcontractor normally contracts for a discrete scope of work on a project. Unlike a general contractor, who has control over or contractual obligations for all aspects of the project, a subcontractor does not have those board responsibilities. The court explained that “[f]rom the eyes of the subcontractor, the ‘project’ is limited to the scope of its own work, and the precise nature of any damage that might occur to something outside of that scope is as unknown or unforeseeable as damage to something entirely outside of the construction project.” Accordingly, the court in Acuity held that when a complaint alleges that a subcontractor’s negligence caused damage to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor’s scope of work, the allegations are enough to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the subcontractor under a CGL policy. The court’s decision in Acuity relied on a similar Illinois Appellate Court decision, Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 524 (Ill. App. 2011). In Larsen, the court reached a similar conclusion where a third-party complaint by a general contractor against a subcontractor alleged that the subcontractor’s improper window caulking caused water intrusion and property damage to other parts of the building. The court in Larsen held that because the complaint alleged not only construction defects, but also damage to other property outside the subcontractor’s scope of work, the insurer had a duty to defend the subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com

Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

February 16, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As readers of Construction Law Musings are well aware, mechanic’s liens and their picky and at times overly form oriented nature are near and dear to my heart as a construction attorney here in Virginia. I recently had the opportunity to meet this head on in Hanover County, Virginia Circuit Court. I was defending a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien in the context of a lien that had been released pursuant to a bond deposited with the court under Va. Code 43-71 on behalf of my client, the defendant in that suit. The case, G.H. Watts Construction, Inc. v. Cornerstone Builders, LLC, involved a memorandum of lien recorded by G. H. Watts without the assistance of an attorney in which the claimant was identified as “G. H. Watts Construction, Inc.” while the signatory on the memorandum of lien and the claimant identified in the notary block were identified as “Gary H. Watts” and “Gary Watts” respectively. Nowhere on the memorandum was Gary Watts’ capacity as it related to the company, nor did it state that Gary Watts was an agent for claimant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES