CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

December 23, 2023 — Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) anticipates proposing a new rule that would revise its “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in Fall 2023. The proposed rule would modernize DOI’s rarely used simplified Type A procedures for assessing damages for natural resource injuries tailored at sites involving minor releases of hazardous substances, with a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury occurring in either coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments (the “Type A Rule”). (See 88 Fed. Reg. 3373; see 43 C.F.R. Pt. 11 Subpt. D.) The Type A Rule was last updated in 1997. DOI previewed the proposal in January 2023 in its Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment’s (ORDA) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). In the ANPR, the ORDA surmised that the Type A Rule was rarely used in part because of its restricted scope, but also because “the model equation for each Type A environment is the functional part of the rule itself—with no provisions to reflect evolving toxicology, ecology, technology, or other scientific understanding without a formal amendment to the Type A Rule each time a parameter is modified.” Calling the existing rule “inefficient and inflexible,” the ORDA stated that its proposal to reformulate the rule “as a procedural structure” would “modernize the Type A process and develop a more flexible and enduring rule than what is provided by the two existing static models” (88 Fed. Reg. 3373). Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Quoting one homeowner as saying that his house “can fall in the ground for all I care, I made my money,” the Tampa Bay Times looks at the issue of sinkhole claims in Florida. Homeowners “have paid off mortgages, put in pools, replaced roofs, or otherwise used money from sinkhole claims to do something besides fix sinkhole damage.

It’s been tough for insurance companies. Citizens Property Insurance took in $32 million in premiums for sinkhole coverage in 2010, but paid out $245 million in sinkhole claims. The Tampa Bay Times notes that some of those claims come from settling problems caused by their repairs, including one settlement of $350,000 for repairs to a house worth $39,000.

One couple, after receiving $217,000 from Citizens, sold the house to a company that bought unrepaired sinkhole homes for $190,000. The home has been sold since and remains unrepaired.

Sometimes the preferred solution by the insurance company isn’t the cheapest either. One couple was informed that Citizens was going to spend $150,000 to have the hole filled with grout. After they settled with the insurance company, they fixed the problem by installing steel piers, at a cost of about $45,000.

Read the full story…

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

---

Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014). Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured. 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

---

PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

May 10, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In January of 2021, Virginia was one of the first states to adopt a permanent workplace safety standard setting out employer requirements for COVID safety. Later that same year, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry updated the standard to make it less confusing and more easily complied with. Now, as of March 21, 2022, DOLI has repealed that permanent standard in response to the changes in COVID guidance and other new information. Instead of a permanent standard, DOLI provides “Guidance for Employers to Mitigate the Risk of COVID-19 to Employees.” This guidance, along with the advice of counsel, should help you in moving forward during the next phase of the COVID pandemic. 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

---

President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

June 05, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13788 implementing his “Buy American, Hire American” campaign promise. Federal construction contractors familiar with “Buy American” clauses in federal contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)–which require materials to be manufactured in the United States (or, depending on the clause, not manufactured in certain countries) unless a waiver is obtained–have waited anxiously to see what Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” promise would mean for them. Well . . . as it turns out, not much, at least not yet. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
After nearly a year of growth, residential construction contracts dropped 22% in the Denver area in August. Residential construction contracts are still above what they were before August 2012, but the gains since then have been wiped out. The value of contracts in August 2012 was $219.8 million, and this this August they have fallen to $171.7 million. Commercial construction also saw a reduction, however, there the fall was only 7%, dropping from $1.54 billion to $1.43 billion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

August 31, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Before the Kardashians, before Empire, before Crazy Rich Asians there was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous with Robin Leach. The next case, Moore v. Teed, Case No. A153523 (April 24, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeals, is about the unfulfilled wishes and dashed dreams of the $13 million dollar “fixer upper.” Moore v. Teed The $13 Million Dollar “Fixer Upper” Justin Moore just wanted to buy a house in San Francisco. But he couldn’t afford one in the neighborhoods he preferred. But in 2011, luck struck, when Moore met Richard Teed, a real estate agent with “over 25 years of experience as a building contractor,” “an extensive background in historic restorations” and a “deep understanding of quality construction.” Teed told Moore that he could locate a “lower-priced fixer-upper in a choice neighborhood and then renovate it.” Moore was sold. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

March 31, 2014 — David W. Evans and Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Law firms seeking to recover attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in fee dispute litigation with their former client should hire outside counsel in order to avoid waiving any entitlement to such fees. Evaluating any potential exposure for a professional negligence claim or cross-claim before filing suit should also be considered. In Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Company, Ltd., et al., No. B242288 (filed March 26, 2014) the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a law firm, represented by its own employees and associates, was not entitled to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party, pursuant to the attorney’s fee provision in the retainer agreement. The Soni decision is the latest addition to the general prohibition enunciated by Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 (“Trope”) and its progeny that law firms are precluded from recovering attorney’s fees for self-representation. In Soni, the law firm obtained a $28,384 judgment for delinquent legal fees against a former client. The firm then filed a motion for attorney’s fees, seeking $120,912 as the fees it incurred as the prevailing party under the retainer agreement. The trial court denied the motion based on the general rule set forth in the Trope line of cases that fees are not recoverable where the firm is represented by attorneys employed by the firm, despite the presence in the applicable retainer agreement of a clause notifying the client that fees the law firm would seek if it prevailed would include those for its in-house personnel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---