Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

July 15, 2015 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
The increased migration from suburbs to metropolitan areas has accompanied an increase in high-rise construction, including the development of high-rise condominium buildings. The resulting metamorphosis of urban skylines, such as seen from Maryland’s Baltimore harbor, has also brought with it many complex construction law and construction litigation issues. Our law firm’s Maryland condominium construction law practice is increasingly called upon to resolve disputes involving high-rise condominium construction design defects between condominium associations, developers, contractors, builders, and design professionals arising out of the construction of high-rise buildings. A condominium building is typically considered to be a high-rise when it is approximately seven or more stories above grade according to the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code, which defines a high-rise as being 75 feet (23 meters) measured from the lowest level accessible to fire department vehicles up to the floor level of the highest occupiable story. High-rise buildings may be residential (e.g., condominiums or multifamily apartment buildings), commercial (e.g., commercial office or retail space), or mixed-use structures. A mixed-use high-rise development might contain retail space, office space, a parking garage, apartments, and condominiums, each owned or maintained by separate entities and each sharing common expenses for the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

New Highway for Olympics Cuts off Village near Sochi, Russia

February 07, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A new highway costing $635 million was built in Sochi, Russia to support this month’s Winter Olympic Games—but the “shining” highway has cut off residents of the Village of Akhtyr, according to The Spokesman-Review. The online publication reports that while the Olympics will showcase the “luxury malls, sleek stadiums and high-speed train links, thousands of ordinary people in the Sochi area put up with squalor and environmental waste: villagers living next to an illegal dump filled with Olympic construction waste, families whose homes are sinking into the earth, city dwellers suffering chronic power cuts despite promises to improve electricity.” One of the Sochi residents told KPAX News that what was once a “15-minute walk to get the bus to work has become a two-hour, cross-country trek. Military guards block their way to the rickety footbridge they used to use.” Furthermore, KPAX News claimed, “Heavy construction and traffic have chewed up the road through town and turned it into a dust bowl.” Read the full story at The Spokesman-Review... Read the full story at KPAX News... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

January 16, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Previously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.) In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract. 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

Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

November 14, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court's use of a multiplier in awarding fees to the insured was affirmed by the Florida Court of Appeal. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Laguerre, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11794 (Fla. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018). Following Hurricane Wilma, the insured made a claim for wind damage to her insurer, Citizens. Citizens investigated the claim and paid $8,400.77. The insured then demanded an appraisal and submitted an appraisal estimate in the amount of $60,256.79. There was no response to the appraisal demand. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

November 12, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The Florida International University Tragedy About half an hour before the almost-completed pedestrian bridge collapsed onto a busy Miami-area road last year, killing six people, Denney Pate, the bridge’s engineer-of-record, sent a text to Linda Figg, the chief executive of FIGG Bridge Engineers. Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

March 12, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014). Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States. After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy. 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

OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

February 22, 2021 — Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note: Face Coverings OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart. Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

April 01, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court (Kralovetz) (Filed 3/27/2015, No. B260798), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held a Delaware railroad corporation, with its principal place of business in Texas, was not subject to “general” personal jurisdiction in California, despite California housing 8.1% of the corporation’s total workforce, accounting for 6% of the corporation’s revenue, and containing just under 5% of its total track mileage. Plaintiff, Vicki Kralovetz, filed suit in California Superior Court against defendant, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), and others, for wrongful death. Plaintiff contended her husband was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by BNSF in Kansas while working at a dismantling facility owned by BNSF’s predecessor in interest. Plaintiff claimed the exposure caused her husband to contract mesothelioma, which resulted in his death. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at mmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES