Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

February 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. 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

Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

December 07, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In Caliber Paving Company, Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc., Case No. G0584406 (September 1, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a higher-tiered party on a construction project can be held liable for intentional interference with contract when it interferes with the contract between lower-tiered parties even though the higher-tiered party has an economic interest in the contract between the lower-tiered parties. The Caliber Paving Case Project owner Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc. owns and operates industrial property throughout Southern California. In 2017, Rexford hired contractor Steve Fodor Construction to perform repaving work at Rexford’s property in Carson, California. Fodor Construction in turn hired subcontractor Caliber Paving Company, Inc. to perform the repaving work. The subcontract divided the parking lot into four areas, with separate costs to repave each area, and Caliber completed its work in one area in June 2017. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

October 15, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I have discussed both payment bond claims under the Miller Act and alternate dispute resolution (ADR) here at Construction Law Musings on many an occasion. A question that is sometimes open is what to do when there is contractually mandated arbitration for claims “relating to the contract or the work.” While here in Virginia, as in most places, the courts will almost automatically send any breach of contract case with such a clause to arbitration, a question exists whether the claim against the bond held by a surety that is not a party to the contract is subject to being referred. Well, in a recent opinion the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk weighed in on this question where there was no opposition or objection to a motion to stay pending arbitration. In U.S. for Use of Harbor Construction Co. Inc. v. THR Enterprises Inc. the Court considered a fairly typical payment dispute leading to a Miller Act claim. The general contractor and surety filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively stay the litigation based upon a clause in the contract between general contractor and subcontractor allowing the general contractor to elect the type of ADR to be used to resolve the dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

March 30, 2016 — John Van Vlear and Karl Foster – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Six months ago, a couple anxiously relayed to N&D lawyers how the sky was falling – with environmental liabilities at the center of their seemingly real Chicken Little fears. The couple owned two properties in a central California town, one being a former gas station which an oil company had abandoned alleging the lease was void given partial eminent domain actions. Before interviewing us, the couple had spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees with another law firm trying to force the oil company to take responsibility for potential environmental impacts under the disputed lease. Reprinted courtesy of John Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP and Karl Foster, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com. Mr. Foster may be contacted at karl.foster@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

June 22, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As previously reported, SB 20-138, “Concerning Increased Consumer Protection for Homeowners Seeking Relief for Construction Defects,” would have extended the Colorado statute of repose applicable to construction defect claims. Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would have:

Extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Required tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permitted statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

May 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Numerous factual issues prevented the court from deciding at the summary judgment stage whether the additional insured was covered for a personal injury claim that happened on a construction site. Paynes Cranes v. Am States Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40485 (E.D. N.Y. March 26, 2014). Intermetal Fabricators, Inc. hired Paynes to provide a crane and driver for the construction of a store. A construction worker was injured while working with the crane. The injured worker sued several defendants, including Paynes. Intermetal had coverage for the project that included additional insureds. The policy provided, “Any person or organization . . . for whom you [Intermetal] are required by written contract, agreement or permit to provide insurance is an insured, subject to the following additional provisions: a. The contract, agreement or permit must be in effect during the policy period . . . and must have been executed prior to the ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage,’ 'person and advertising injury.’” 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

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

October 10, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Often in construction litigation the parties wish to move the case to arbitration. However, there are certain circumstances in which such change of litigation forums should be carefully analyzed. The case of White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, serves as an example of one of those circumstances. In March 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Blackburn ruled on a motion for summary judgment filed by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”). The order grants the motion in part and denies it in part. White River Village, LLP (“White River”) was the owner of the project which hired S&S Joint Venture (“S&S”), the contractor, to build two similar developments, directly adjacent to each other. The contracts between Whiter River and S&S for the two projects were so substantially similar that the court referred to them as the S&S Contracts. F&D issued payment and performance bonds guarantying the obligations of S&S under the S&S Contracts. After S&S defaulted on the construction contracts, F&D, as the surety, undertook to complete performance on the contracts. White River alleged that F&D was liable for construction defects and delays in completing the project, and failed to fulfill its obligations under the performance bonds after it overtook the construction of the projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES