CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

December 21, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
If you are a member of the California construction industry you might know that the right of a contractor, subcontractor or supplier to record a mechanics lien to protect the right to payment is well protected by state law. In fact, our California Constitution, article XIV, Sec. 3 specifically elevates the right to a mechanics lien to “Constitutional right”. The right to a mechanics lien is further protected by a statutory framework, including Civil Code sec. 8122 which states:

“An owner, direct contractor, or subcontractor may not, by contract or otherwise, waive, affect, or impair any other claimant’s rights under this part, whether with or without notice, and any term of a contract that purports to do so is void and unenforceable unless and until the claimant executes and delivers a waiver and release under this article.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

September 10, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
As is often the answer in this blog, maybe. And, it will likely depend on which state’s law is applied. Over the last few weeks, courts around the country have reached differing conclusions on whether a general contractor may sue an architect that it did not hire. Here’s the situation: The owner hires an architect to draft plans for a project. The project is then put out for bid and the owner hires a general contractor for the work. The general contractor and architect do not enter into a contract with each other. If, during construction, the general contractor finds fault with the plans, it may seek Request for Information and Change Orders, to shore up the perceived problems with the plans. Ultimately, the general contractor may sue the architect to recover damages it suffered in completing the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

May 10, 2022 — Joneis M. Phan & Sarah K. Bloom - ConsensusDocs
Federal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable. Reprinted courtesy of Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs). Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

August 03, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Several interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts. FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes. On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Governor Signs AB5 Into Law — Reshaping California's Independent Contractor Classification Landscape

December 02, 2019 — Eric C. Sohlgren & Matthew C. Lewis - Payne & Fears Legal Alert
Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), controversial legislation which will have a substantial impact on California employers when it goes into effect on January 1, 2020. AB5 enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Under the ABC test established in Dynamex and now under AB5, a worker may be properly considered an independent contractor only if the hiring entity establishes all three of the following: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. Reprinted courtesy of Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears and Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases

April 03, 2023 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law Group
DC Condominium Association’s Can Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages in Construction Defect Cases Involving Misrepresentation The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) § 28-3905(k)(1)(A) creates a private legal claim (a/k/a “cause of action”) which can be asserted by a condominium unit owners association (“condominium association”) on behalf of two or more of its unit owner members who are misled by a condominium developer regarding the condition or quality of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium. Under the DC CPPA, a successful claimant is entitled to recover “treble damages” (i.e., three times the amount of damages it proves), plus recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees” incurred in prosecuting the construction defect claim and “[a]ny other relief the court determines proper,” including non-attorney fee litigation expenses. DC CPPA § 28-3905(k)(2)(A), (B) and (F). The CPPA Creates the Legal Claim that Allows a Condominium Associations to Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages The DC CPPA is a consumer-oriented statute designed to protect Washington DC consumers misled in connection with the purchase of consumer “real estate,” including transactions involving the purchase of a condominium unit and interest in the condominium common elements. Typically, these cases involve the sale of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium, which, contrary to developer representations, contains latent construction defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com

---

Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

May 20, 2015 — Neil Callanan – Bloomberg
Edward Davenport, jailed for fraud for his role in a fake lender, sold a 24-bedroom mansion in London’s Marylebone district that was featured in the film “The King’s Speech.” The money raised from the sale will be used to repay 13 million pounds ($20 million) from a confiscation order by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the Serious Fraud Office said in a statement Wednesday. Davenport was jailed for more than seven years in October 2011 for his role in Gresham Ltd., a company that said it offered to provide commercial funding in return for advance fees, the SFO said. After securing the payments, employees would make deceptive assertions to extract further fees, the SFO said in 2011. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg

---

Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

April 17, 2019 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---