Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

June 17, 2024 — Jason L. Morris & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
The California legislature passed Senate Bill 553 (SB 553) in 2023. This bill requires most California employers to implement a written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and to train employees on the WVPP. At Newmeyer Dillion, we are dedicated to helping you navigate these requirements and maintain a safe, compliant work environment. Act Now: Two Weeks to Comply With SB 553's July 1st compliance deadline, employers have just two weeks to develop and implement a compliant Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP). The clock is ticking, and it is imperative to act swiftly to ensure compliance and protect your employees. What is SB 553? SB 553 is a legislative measure aimed at enhancing workplace safety by mandating specific actions from employers to prevent workplace violence. This bill recognizes the growing concern around workplace violence incidents and the need for proactive measures to maintain a safe workplace. The key components of SB 553 include:

Establishment of a Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP): Employers are required to develop and implement a comprehensive written WVPP tailored to their specific workplace environment and risks.

Reprinted courtesy of Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

December 27, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment was granted based upon the insured's late notice nearly two years after a hurricane caused property damage. Ramirez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209716 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2021). Plaintiff alleged he suffered property loss due to wind and water damage from Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. The roof, exterior, and interior of the home were damaged. On May 20, 2019, twenty months after the hurricane, plaintiff first notified Scottsdale of his claim for damages. An adjuster inspected and observed wind, wear and tear, and deterioration damage to the roof tile, as well as interior water damage to portions of the home. The claim was denied based upon wind, wear and tear, and deterioration exclusions in the policy. 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

Sioux City Building Owners Sue Architect over Renovation Costs

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
According to the architects, it should have cost a few hundred thousand dollars to strengthen the floors of Sioux City’s Badgerow Building. Instead, the upgrades cost somewhere between $3 and $5 million, which Mako One, the builder’s owners, said would have dissuaded them from starting had they known. Mako is suing M Plus Architects, for this and for its recommendation that the building’s windows be changed. That change ran foul of historic preservation guidelines, and the windows will have to be replaced. M Plus is, in return, suing Mako One over $150,000 in unpaid bills. Meanwhile, a data center is moving in on the fourth floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

April 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California Contractors State License Board (CSLB”) has issued new application forms. Effective May 1, 2017, the CSLB will only accept forms with a revision date of October 2017 (Pro tip: see bottom of form to verify it indicates a revision date of “10/16” or later). 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

Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

February 10, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Although the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine, it determined it did not apply to salvage coverage under an all-risk policy for a rain-damaged building. Fourth Street Place, LLC v. The Travelers Indemn. Co., 2011 Nev LEXIS 114 (Nev. Dec. 29, 2011).

Fourth Street owned an office building which was insured by an all-risk policy issued by Travelers. Fourth Street hired Above It All Roofing to repair the roof of the office building. Above It All removed the waterproof membrane on the roof and prepared to replace the membrane the following week. Over the weekend, however, substantial rain hit. On Sunday, Above It All returned to cover the exposed portions of the roof with tarps, but wind later blew the tarps away. The building suffered significant interior damage as it continued to be exposed to the rain.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

July 09, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014). Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders. Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers. 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

The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

July 10, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been three months since the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S222732 (April 30, 2018) and I’ve had a couple of readers (perhaps my only two) ask whether I was going to write about the decision. I’m not. Well, obviously, that’s not quite true if you’re reading this. Rather, I’ll tell you why I’m writing about not writing about the decision. Dynamex is certainly an important decision and one that will likely be cited for decades to come. In short, Dynamex changed the nearly 30-year old test, first elucidated in S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, for determining whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee. 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

Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

May 18, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On February 7th, Representative Garnett, with Senator Fenberg as the Senate sponsor, introduced HB 20-1290, concerning the ability of an insurer to use a failure-to-cooperate defense in an action in which the insured has made a claim for insurance coverage. If the bill were to pass, in order to plead or prove a failure-to-cooperate defense in any action concerning first-party insurance benefits, the following conditions must be met:

The carrier has submitted a written request for information the carrier seeks to the insured or the insured’s representative, by certified mail;
The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
The information sought would be discoverable in litigation;

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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES