CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

October 11, 2017 — Timothy D. Matheny – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Every contractor that does business with the federal government is familiar with the requirement to use of E-Verify in order to document the employability of a contractor’s employees. But, when is a contractor required to use E-Verify in Texas? And, does this requirement to use E-Verify extend to the contractor’s subcontractors? All contractors and each of their subcontractors will be required to use E-Verify for a variety of goods and services contracts with state agencies. Failure to understand these requirements could lead to your company losing out on the award of the next Texas public procurement contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com

---

Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

September 25, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Brad Pitt’s foundation has sued its architect of New Orleans projects alleging “defective design work led to leaks and other flaws in homes built for residents of an area that was among the hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina,” reported Insurance Journal. The Make It Right Foundation claims damages of more than $15 million caused by architect John C. Williams. According to Insurance Journal, “The foundation paid Williams’ firm millions of dollars to produce architectural drawings for more than 100 homes under the program, which was supposed to provide Lower 9th Ward residents with sustainable and affordable new homes.” This lawsuit against the architect is apparently in response to a class-action lawsuit by New Orleans attorney Ron Austin against Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation. Austin’s lawsuit “accused the charity of building substandard homes that are deteriorating at a rapid pace,” Insurance Journal reported. The 39 homes involved in a previous suit regarding the manufacturer of TimberSIL are excluded from the lawsuit against Williams. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

February 16, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
What is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond. 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

---

Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

March 02, 2020 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund. Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

---

Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

May 29, 2023 — Olivia Rudgard - Bloomberg
This article is part of the Bloomberg Green series Timber Town, which looks at the global rise of timber as a low-carbon building material. To get fire department approval for their six-story London office project made of strong engineered wood known as mass timber, Theo Michell and Richard Walker had to build a full-scale section of it in the UK, ship it to Poland and attempt to set it on fire. The mockup was set alight “with enough material that replicates the fire load that you get from furniture and carpets and desks, and all the rest of it, and you see how that structure performs,” says Michell. “It was cool,” adds Walker. “It looked amazing.” Their building, called Paradise, passed the fire test and is under construction, though not without a significant drag on their budget and time. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg

---

Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

April 06, 2020 — Shawna Ruetz - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois Labor & Employment Blog
On March 11, 2020, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) issued emergency rules, referred to as Colorado Health Emergency Leave with Pay (Colorado HELP) Rules, requiring employers in certain industries to provide four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms while awaiting test results for COVID-19, or to anyone who is under instructions from a healthcare provider to quarantine or isolate due to a risk of having COVID-19. These rules take effect immediately for 30 days, or longer if the state of emergency declared by Colorado Governor Polis continues. Which industries are covered by the Colorado HELP Rules?

• Leisure and hospitality;
• Food services;
• Child care;
• Education (including transportation, food service, and related work at educational establishments);
• Home health (if working with elderly, disabled, ill, or otherwise high-risk individuals)
• Nursing homes; and
• Community living facilities; and
• Retail establishments that sell groceries (added March 26).

How much paid sick leave must be provided? Employers are required to provide up to four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms who are being tested for COVID-19. If the employee tests negative, the leave ends. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Ruetz, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Ruetz may be contacted at Shawna.Ruetz@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

March 28, 2018 — Neal Philip – Insurance Law Blog
As previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine. Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file. Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018) The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neal Philip, Gordon, Reese, Scully, & Mansukhani
Mr. Philip may be contacted at nphilip@grsm.com

---

Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

June 13, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, the appellate court held that the attorney’s fees provision in the contract was NOT broad enough to entitle the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. This is known as “fees on fees” which is when you can recover your prevailing party attorney’s fees when you are fighting over the quantum that should be awarded to you as the prevailing party. The attorney’s fees provision at-issue stated: “In any lawsuit to enforce the Lease or under applicable law, the party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover its reasonable court costs including attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.” Language similar to this language can be found in many contracts as a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. However, this provision was NOT broad enough to recover “fees on fees.” As explained in this article, if this is a consideration, you can negotiate or include this provision into your construction contract by expanding the scope of the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision to clarify that it entitles the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---