Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

September 05, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been selected to the 2023 Northern California Super Lawyers list in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the tenth consecutive year that he has been recognized by Super Lawyers. Garret was also also featured in this year’s Northern California Super Lawyer’s magazine’s 20th anniversary cover story “Built Different” where he talks a bit about his practice and changes he has seen over the past 20 years as a construction lawyer. The following is an excerpt from the article:

“The New Reality of Work” Garret Murai, whose father was an architect, is a founding partner of Nomos LLP, an Oakland-based construction law firm. Concentrating in both commercial and public works, Murai’s clients run the gamut from contractors and subcontractors to owners and developers.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

September 18, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome a great friend. Scott Wolfe Jr. (@scottwolfejr)is a construction attorney in Louisiana, Washington and Oregon, and is the founding member of the construction practice Wolfe Law Group. He authors the Construction Law Monitor. He is also the founder of the mechanic lien and preliminary notice filing service, Zlien, and the author of its Construction Lien Blog. Residential construction disputes come in all shapes and sizes, but very typically have one thing in common: they can get very nasty. This is understandable, especially in today’s economy. The homeowner is spending hard-earned money on something very personal to them, their home. They want it done right. The contractor is working on really tight margins, and with a diligent client. 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

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

September 16, 2019 — Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP
Wilke Fleury is proud to announce that 14 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine. Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. Reprinted courtesy of Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

July 16, 2023 — Kelly Erb - White and Williams LLP
Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) of Florida signed a new law that would prohibit people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose "domicile" is in China from purchasing certain real property in the state. Generally, the prohibition applies to agricultural land and other land within ten miles of restricted areas, including military bases and infrastructure like airports and wastewater treatment plants. The law, which takes effect on July 1, 2023, would also impose criminal penalties on any person or real estate company that knowingly sells real estate in the Sunshine State to anyone impacted by the ban. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Erb, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Erb may be contacted at erbk@whiteandwilliams.com

Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

April 06, 2011 — Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis

On February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.

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

Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that when considered as a whole, separately filed proofs of loss and estimates of damage were sufficient to meet the requirements of a flood policy. Young v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51863 (April 15, 2014). On August 29, 2012, plaintiffs' property sustained flood damage due to Hurricane Isaac. After Imperial's adjustor inspected the property, advance payments were made for $5000 under the building coverage and $5000 under the contents coverage. On October 26, 2012, the plaintiffs' adjustor submitted a proof of loss for building damages, stating the amount of loss was $175,100, which was the policy limit minus the deductible. The insured wife signed the proof of loss. The actual case value, full cost of replacement or repair, and applicable depreciation were listed "undetermined." 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

A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

October 21, 2024 — Kelly A. Johnson & Damian S. Barquin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A recent decision by a federal court helps clear the path to coverage for property owners this hurricane season. The Court deemed one property policy’s flood exclusion inapplicable to bar coverage for water damage from backed-up drainage and overflow caused by excessive rainfall. The case, styled G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)), involved a familiar dispute between the insured and insurer following damage to covered property after a named storm’s heavy rainfall. Here, G.E.M.S. Partners LLC (“Insured”) obtained a commercial property policy from AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”) to cover three neighboring buildings in Union, New Jersey. In September 2021, intense rainfall from Hurricane Ida overwhelmed the local infrastructure and sewer system, leading to water leakage from plumbing fixtures at the insured property. To secure coverage under its AmGUARD policy, the Insured wisely relied on its “Water Back-Up and Sump Overflow Endorsement” (“Back-Up/Overflow Endorsement”). Under this endorsement, AmGUARD promised to “pay for ... damage ... caused by ... water ... which backs up through or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer.”1 Indeed, a plumber that inspected the buildings following Hurricane Ida described the root cause of the water damage as a “back up” of “sewer ... water.”2 Reprinted courtesy of Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Damian S. Barquin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com Mr. Barquin may be contacted at DBarquin@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES