Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

June 13, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found that the insurer acted in bad faith when the claim was denied based on the adjuster's lack of knowledge of recent case law in Washington. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Constr. Assocs. of Spokane, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53533 (E.D. Wash. March 24, 2022). Construction Associates of Spokane was a general contractor hired for a project at the Paulsen Building in Spokane. Construction Association hired a subcontractor, Merit Electric, for whom Mark Wilson worked. Wilson was seriously injured on August 20, 2016. He sued the Construction Associates along with other defendants three years later. Construction Associates tendered to Merit Electric's broker, Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Alliant forward the tender to Security National. The tender letter included a certificate of insurance issued by Alliant to Contractor Associates on September 3, 2019 and the subcontract with Merit. The subcontract required Merit to maintain CGL coverage with limits of $1 million. Further, the subcontractor was to issue certificate of insurance to the Contractor. 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

California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

February 21, 2022 — Jessica L. Daley - Newmeyer Dillion
On February 9, 2022, Governor Newsom signed California Legislature Senate Bill 114 (SB 114), which reinstates supplemental paid sick leave for qualifying reasons relating to COVID-19. Employers may recall SB 95, which expired on September 30, 2021, and was substantially similar to SB 114. Like its predecessor, SB 114 applies to employers with 26 or more employees and provides up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to full-time employees who are unable to work (including telework) for a reason relating to COVID-19. While this legislation goes into effect on February 19, 2022, it will retroactively apply back to January 1, 2022 and remain in effect until September 30, 2022. REASONS FOR LEAVE – TWO PERIODS Unlike SB 95, SB 114 breaks the total possible 80 hours of COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (CSPL) for full-time employees into two 40-hour periods. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica L. Daley, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Daley may be contacted at jessica.daley@ndlf.com

A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

April 29, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Diego, Calif. (April 10, 2024) - California legislators have changed the rules of discovery in civil cases through the passage of amendments to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2016.090 and 2023.050, effective January 1, 2024. Section 2016.090 creates a new set of rules for civil litigators in cases filed on or after January 1, 2024, which permits any party to the litigation to demand initial disclosures be provided within 60-days. Such a demand can be made any time after a party has filed a responsive pleading, including a demurrer or motion to strike. Notably, this rule requires production of all information relevant to any causes of action that are pled at the time of the demand, meaning the parties may be required to disclose information related to claims that are being challenged on demurrer or a motion to strike, such as claims for punitive damages. This statute is only implicated when one of the parties to the action makes a demand and may be modified by stipulation of the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

August 30, 2017 — H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck. KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation. Reprinted courtesy of H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Las Vegas Review-Journal is supporting efforts to reform the state’s construction defect laws. Although the intention was to “protect homeowners from the costs of shoddy workmanship,” they state the laws have instead “enriched lawyers and made housing more expensive.” The take the Las Vegas homeowner association scandal as a sign that reform is needed. A further sign of needed reform is that during a time when new home sales decreased, construction defect claims more than tripled. The editorial notes that “current law allows lawsuits to be brought for cosmetic imperfections that pose no risks.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New FAR Rule Mandates the Use of PLAs on Large Construction Projects

October 10, 2022 — Reggie Jones - ConsensusDocs
The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council recently published a proposed ruled that, once implemented, will require the use of project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction projects with a contract value of $35 million or greater. The proposed rule revokes President Obama’s Executive Order 13502 and implements an Executive Order 14063 (E.O. 14063) issued on February 9, 2022. E.O. 14063 addresses the use of PLAs in the government contracts. Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the use of PLAs on “large-scale construction projects” is discretionary. The new rule proposed by the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) revises the FAR contract clauses making the use of PLAs mandatory. Under the proposed rule, contractors performing “large-scale construction projects” will be required to “negotiate or become a party to a [PLA] with one or more appropriate labor organizations.” FAR 52.222-33. A PLA is in essence a collective bargaining agreement between a local trade union and contractor that governs employment terms, including wages and benefits, for union and non-union workers. Although the PLA mandate only applies to large-scale construction projects with the contract value of $35 million and more, under the proposed rule, agencies have the option to include the PLA requirement for construction projects that are under the $35 million threshold. The proposed rule also sets out a flow-down requirement, which means that subcontractors working on a large-scale project must likewise be familiar with and comply with terms of the PLA negotiated by a prime contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Reggie Jones, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@foxrothschild.com

Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

August 02, 2017 — Omar Parra & Jesse M. Sullivan - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed California’s latent defect statute of limitations, codified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, bars only claims based on construction defects. Estuary Owners Association v. Shell Oil Company, No. A145516, (Cal. Ct. App. July 26, 2017). The Court also reemphasized that under California’s three-year statute of limitations for damage to real property, delineated in California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(b), the actual and constructive knowledge of the prior landowner is imputed to the current landowner. Estuary Owners Association concerned the development and construction of a 100-unit condominium by Signature at the Estuary, LLC (“Signature”) on land Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) previously used as a fuel distribution terminal. Construction of the condominiums was completed in 2006. In 2008, it was discovered that residual concentrations of petroleum related chemicals remained in the soil, soil gas, and groundwater beneath the development. Later that year, Signature revealed that the condominiums had been constructed with moisture barriers beneath the building slabs instead of the vapor/gas barriers called for in the corrective action plan. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES