CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

August 20, 2018 — Jeff Yoders, Pam Radtke Russell, JT Long, and Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings on June 27 that wrapped the court’s current case calendar addressed labor relations and water rights issues with construction sector impact. Its 5-4 decision in Janus v. AFSCME that public-sector employees can’t be forced to pay “fair-share fees” to unions could affect industry professionals represented by labor groups in 22 states. Reprinted courtesy of ENR journalists Jeff Yoders, Pam Radtke Russell, JT Long and Debra K. Rubin Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Ms. Debra may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Patrick Nugent of Saul Ewing LLP’s article in JD Supra Business Advisor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a summary judgment for the insurer on a statutory bad faith claim in a coverage dispute under a homeowner’s policy. The coverage dispute was over “the collapse of a wall in the plaintiffs’ home.” The Plaintiffs alleged that “the collapse resulted from excessive rainfall during a storm in March 2011.” However, Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s engineer concluded that the collapse “resulted from long-term and on-going water infiltration attributable to poor maintenance.” Water damage had occurred a year prior to the collapse, but had not been repaired. In response, “Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.” The court “determined that Metropolitan’s denial of benefits ‘was not only reasonable, but correct under the Policy language,’” and “ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that Metropolitan lacked a reasonable basis for denying their claim and entered summary judgment for Metropolitan on the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

September 06, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Virginia Code Sec. 11-4.1 makes indemnification provisions in construction contracts that are so broad as to indemnify the indemnitee from its own negligence unenforceable. Of course, this begs the question as to what language of indemnification provisions make them unenforceable. A case from the City of Chesapeake Virginia Circuit Court examined this question. In Wasa Props., LLC v. Chesapeake Bay Contrs., Inc., 103 Va. Cir 423 [unfortunately I can’t find a copy to which to link], Wasa Properties (“Wasa”) hired Chesapeake Bay Contractors (“CBC”) to perform utility work at Lake Thrasher in the Tidewater area of Virginia. Wasa then alleged that CBC breached the contract and caused over $400,000 in damages due to incorrectly installed water lines. Wasa used the following indemnification language as the basis for its suit:

To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner and his agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney’s fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work.

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

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

December 02, 2019 — Gregory S. Pennington & Kevin Sullivan - Traub Lieberman
On July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

There is No Claims File Privilege in Florida, Despite What Insurers Want You to Think

June 17, 2024 — Susana Arce & Stephanie A. Giagnorio - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
As Florida insurers continue their attempts to narrow protections for policyholders, it is imperative - now more than ever - that insureds be well-informed and know their rights. Most recently, in Florida, insurers are attempting to weaponize the death of Senate Bill 1726 and House Bill 1287 to limit the documents disclosed to policyholders. Specifically, the proposed bill, which required insurers to disclose their claims file to policyholders, hoped to thwart insurers from utilizing “claims file privilege” to obstruct justice for policyholders and help level the playing field. The goal of the proposed bill was to promote transparency of the claim adjustment process and undercut insurers’ attempts to dodge discovery of relevant and necessary information during litigation, forcing the insurers to fully and honestly justify their basis for withholding coverage . Unfortunately for policyholders, on March 8, 2024, the proposed legislation was not passed by the Insurance and Banking Subcommittee. While insurers want you to believe this is a significant victory and a free pass to continue withholding documents under a “claims file privilege,” this is not the case. The proposed bill merely codified current Florida law – simply put, the “claims file privilege” never existed, and still does not. Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Stephanie A. Giagnorio, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com Ms. Giagnorio may be contacted at SGiagnorio@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

January 28, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's bad faith claim based upon the insurer's alleged use of an independent contractor to assess the amount of loss in order to lower the amount paid survived a motion to dismiss. Williamson v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178022 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2013). The insureds' home was damaged. Chubb, their insurer, retained an independent contractor, Eastern Diversified Services (EDS) to assess the amount of loss. EDS estimated the loss to be $193,270.43, and Chubb paid this amount. Chubb's standard practice was to conduct damage estimates itself using an estimating program called Symbility. EDS used a different program with a data base creating lower payments for loss. When this was brought to Chubb's attention, Chubb refused to recalculate the plaintiff's estimate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

May 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An exculpatory provision in a contract is a provision that relieves one party from liability for damages. It shifts the risk of an issue entirely to the other party. Such a provision is generally drafted by the party preparing the contract that is looking to eliminate or disclaim liability associated with a particular risk, oftentimes a risk within their control. These provisions are also known as limitation of liability provisions because they do exactly that — limit liability as to a risk. For this reason, they can be useful provisions based on the context of certain risks, and are provisions that are included in business contracts (such as construction contracts). While such clauses are disfavored, they are enforceable if they are drafted clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally. If they are unclear, ambiguous, or equivocal, they will construed against enforcement. See Obsessions In Time, Inc. v. Jewelry Exchange Venture, LLP, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1033a (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding exculpatory clause in lease ambiguous and, therefore, unenforceable as to lessor looking to benefit from the exculpatory clause). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

April 25, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle obtained summary judgment on behalf of a contract utility company (“Utility Company”) in a matter brought before the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries as a result of a trip and fall accident where the Plaintiff’s foot allegedly went into a hole in the grass strip abutting the sidewalk adjacent to a premises located in Queens, NY. The Plaintiff claimed that the defect in the sidewalk was caused by the removal of a utility pole at the curb strip that was not correctly backfilled. The Defendant Utility Company is in the business of inspecting, treating, and repairing utility and telecommunication structures, including wooden utility poles. TLSS was successfully able to establish that, three years prior to the accident, the Utility Company was retained to conduct a visual inspection of the subject pole. However, the Utility Company does not and has not owned, installed, removed or replaced in-service utility poles in New York or at the location of the alleged accident. Further, TLSS established that the Utility Company did not service or remove the subject pole at the accident site or backfill the curb strip. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

---