CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

October 29, 2014 — William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Willams LLP
In a decision regarding a payment claim by a highway contractor against the City of Allentown, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that an award of attorney's fees and penalties is mandatory under the terms of the Pennsylvania Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3901 et seq., upon a finding of bad faith by the non-paying government agency, even though the statute only states that a court “may” award such fees and penalties. In A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Allentown, Cmwlth. Ct. No. 2163 C.D. 2013, the plaintiff, A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (Scott), won a contract with the City of Allentown (City) to construct a one mile roadway. Several weeks after commencing work, Scott learned that soil at the construction site was potentially contaminated with arsenic, and was instructed by the City to suspend its work. Because of the soil contamination, additional work would be required to complete the project and Scott submitted proposals for the additional work plus its suspension costs. However, the City never approved the additional work and the project was never completed. The City never paid Scott for costs incurred due to the suspension of the work and Scott filed suit to recover its losses. The jury found that the City had breached the contract with Scott and had acted in bad faith in violation of the Procurement Code, and awarded damages to Scott for its unreimbursed suspension costs. However, the trial court denied Scott’s request for an award of attorney's fees and penalty interest. Both Scott and the City appealed the final judgment to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed the trial court’s refusal to award attorney's fees and penalties. Reprinted courtesy of William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal of a summary judgment in the case Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc. MFS was hired by Bella to be the general contractor for a hotel in Gardendale, Alabama. MFS hired various subcontractors, including the architect for the project. After completion of the hotel in April, 2006, Bella made requests for MFS to repair cracked floor tiles.

In August, 2008, Bella sued MFS, the architect, and various fictitiously named defendants. Subsequently, Bella amended its complaint, naming some of the fictitiously named defendants.

MFS in turn claimed that Bella’s claims were void under the statute of limitations and that Bella was in beach of contact by failing to pay MFS the full amount owed. MFS moved for summary judgment under the statute of limitations, which was granted by the court.

Bella requested that the court “alter, amend, or vacate its summary judgment order.” When this was denied, Bella appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Appeals refused to vacate the summary judgment as claims that form part of the case against MFS are also part of Bella’s claims against the other defendants. For this reason, the court upheld the summary judgment.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

January 08, 2024 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Omega Flex, Inc., No. CIV-22-18-D, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197755, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (the District Court) determined spoliation sanctions were not warranted after a home was demolished for repair following a joint scene examination. The insurer, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer) provided a policy of insurance to Michael and Sondra Diel (the Diels). On July 11, 2020, the Diels’ home was struck by lightning and their attic caught fire. Following the loss, Insurer retained both counsel and fire origin and cause experts to inspect the Diels’ property. Insurer’s counsel informed in-house counsel for Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) via a letter dated July 14, 2020, that a preliminary investigation indicated the fire may have been caused by an Omega Flex product—specifically, TracPipe Corrugated Stainless Steel Tubing (CSST). Insurer’s counsel invited Omega Flex to inspect the property, noting: “It is anticipated that the loss will exceed $300,000” and stating that any inspection “must be completed during the next two weeks. At that time, the homeowner will proceed with demolition to rebuild.” (Emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers

November 16, 2020 — Alan Paulk - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Among many things to look forward to in 2021, we can add a new lien law to the list. Effective January 1, 2021, Georgia’s Lien Statute will be modified so that lien waivers and releases are limited to “waivers and releases of lien and labor or material bond rights and shall not be deemed to affect any other rights or remedies of the claimant.” O.C.G.A. 44-14-366(a). This would mean that lien waivers only waive lien or bond rights and do not waive contractual rights to collect payment. The new law is in reaction to a decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals in ALA Constr. Servs., LLC v. Controlled Access, Inc., 351 Ga. App. 841 (2019). In that case, a contractor signed an interim lien waiver at the time it submitted an invoice. The contractor did not receive payment, and it failed to timely record an affidavit of non-payment or a claim of lien. Subsequently, the contractor filed suit for breach of contract. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the statutory form lien waiver was binding against the parties “for all purposes” and not just the purpose of preserving the right to file a lien. By such sweeping logic, the contractor’s breach of contract claim was denied. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Paulk, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Paulk may be contacted at paulk@ahclaw.com

---

New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Carlstadt Board of Education recently commissioned a investigation into the water leaks at Carlstadt Public School. The report has not been released in full, but redacted board minutes make reference to "a lack of waterproofing, drainage and clogged or buried weep holes." The investigation is ongoing and the board's business administrator, Pamela Baxley, states that its "ability to recover damages in potential litigation may be impacted should this information be released prior to the conclusion of their investigation." The building in question opened in April 2007, and the leaking began that October. The contractor has fixed leaks, but further leaks have occurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

July 05, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Claims against manufacturers and distributors of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) are hurtling forward. Two important developments in this opening salvo of PFAS-related claims against numerous defendants could have important ramifications not only on future PFAS litigation, but on insurance coverage for potential PFAS liabilities as well. First, ten bellwether cases are progressing closer to trial. Second, the key “government contractor defense” has been slated for briefing. In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established a multi-district litigation (MDL 2873) for AFFF PFAS claims in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Unlike previous PFAS lawsuits (primarily against DuPont and/or 3M), the lawsuits in MDL 2873 target dozens of defendants who manufactured and distributed AFFF and its constituent chemicals. MDL 2873 now houses approximately 1,200 member cases, which include the following categories of claims: (i) claims for property damage asserted by water providers, (ii) claims for property damage asserted by property owners, (iii) bodily injury claims, and (iv) claims for medical monitoring for potential future injury. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

July 26, 2017 — Richard W. Brown & Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit applied the Davis factors to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract. In Larry Doiron Inc. et al., v. Specialty Rental Tool & Supply LLP et al., the court affirmed the notion that if a contract provides services on navigable waters aboard a vessel, a maritime contract exists, even if the contract calls for incidental or insubstantial work unrelated to the use of a vessel. With this decision, plaintiffs were granted indemnification for a crane injury and all was well on the open seas. The 5th Circuit made waves, however, on July 7, 2017, when it agreed to rehear the case en banc. In its petition for rehearing, defendant STS argued that: (1) the original opinion conflicted with Supreme Court precedent by applying tort law principles to a contract case; (2) the court misapplied the Davis factors and the decision was contrary to Davis because the historical treatment of specialty well service work has been established as non-maritime; (3) the court needed to address whether a contract is subject to maritime or land-based law in the context of offshore mineral exploration. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

April 03, 2019 — Kevin Sullivan - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

---