CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A “5-alarm fire burned down a residential building under construction in the Montrose area” of Houston, Texas, reported Click 2 Houston. Almost 200 emergency personnel were on the scene. Captain Ruy Lozano told Click 2 Houston that “firefighters worked to contain the blaze, before the imminent collapse because the fire suppression systems were not yet in place for the under-construction building.” ABC News reported that fire fighters rescued Curtis Reissig, a construction worker from the fire. “It’s burning my eyes, my throat. I can’t breathe and I can’t hardly see anything,” Reissig told ABC News. “I could see a window. I went to that window. Trying to open that window in a panic. I couldn’t get the thing open. Smoke was getting heavier, just trying to get some air.” ABC News reported that Reissig jumped down from a fifth story balcony to a ledge below, where “firefighters pulled him to safety.” Read the full story at Click 2 Houston... Read the full story at ABC News... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

August 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Several months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.

“The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”

Construction Difficulties The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner. 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

---

South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

October 24, 2023 — Laura Paris Paton - Gordon Rees Construction Law Blog
Could the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration. This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Paton may be contacted at lpaton@grsm.com

---

The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

July 24, 2023 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law Group
THE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in residential condominiums. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) § 42-1903.16(b). The warranty applies to both condominium common elements and each condominium unit. It requires a developer to repair structural defects, including any resulting damage to the condominium caused by a common element structural defect. DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(a-1)(2). The statute creating this warranty is called the “Warranty Against Structural Defects,” contained in the DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16. “Structural Defects” Defined The warranty applies to “structural defects,” which are very broadly defined to include many types of construction defects. Structural defects are not just limited to defects in the supporting structure of the building. Rather, a structural defect can be any condition that:

“(A) Reduces the stability or safety of unit or common elements below standards commonly accepted in the real estate market,” or (B) Restricts the normally intended use of all or part of the common elements of a unit and which requires repair, renovation, restoration, or replacement to serve the purpose for which it was intended.” DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(j)(6).

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

---

Carroll Brock of Larchmont Homes Dies at Age 88

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Homebuilder Carroll Brock, "whose family-owned company built thousands of Larchmont Homes in the Sacramento region, died Oct. 31 of natural causes in his sleep, his son Steve said," according to the obituary in the Sacramento Bee. "Under Mr. Brock, who was named Sacramento general manager in 1967, Larchmont Homes built nearly 15,000 houses in more than 30 subdivisions of modest ranch-style homes aimed mostly at first-time buyers." Mr. Brock served on the board of the National Association of Home Builders, was past president of the North State Building Industry Association, and had been appointed to the California state Board Standards Commission. Furthermore, he was inducted into the California Building Industry Association Hall of Fame in 1991. Mr. Brock served the community through his work in the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Commission as well as the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. He volunteered his time to the Salvation Army as well as offering construction assistance and expertise to the Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church. “My dad was a humble leader,” his son told the Sacramento Bee. “As successful as he was at building homes, he felt just as strongly about serving others.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself

February 01, 2022 — David Hoynacki, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On January 19, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), held that a plaintiff is not barred as a matter of law from proving causation in a slip and fall case if there were no witnesses to the fall, and the plaintiff does not remember the fall itself. The Court of Appeal stated specifically that circumstantial evidence would permit a jury to make a “reasonable and probable inference” regarding contributing factors to a fall, even with no eye-witness evidence. In Kaney v. Mazza (BC619247, Jan. 19, 2022), plaintiff and appellant Lydia Kaney (Kaney), was visiting her sister in her rented home in September of 2014. At some point during the visit, the light in the bathroom at the top of the stairs stopped working—Kaney used the stairs, and fell. Kaney filed suit against her sister and the owner of the home alleging premises liability, negligence, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In her deposition, Kaney testified that she remembered going up to the bathroom, and then waking up on the floor in pain. She could not remember how she fell; she did not know if she had missed a step, or if she had slipped and fallen backwards. She speculated that a worn-out bath mat may have been the cause of the slip and fall because the rubber traction on the bath mat was worn away. Reprinted courtesy of David Hoynacki, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Hoynacki may be contacted at dhoynacki@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

April 22, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In United Services Automobile Association v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, No. 218 2017 CV 01113, [1] the Superior Court of Rockingham County, New Hampshire recently considered whether the eight-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applied to the manufacturer of a ceiling ventilation fan that was installed in the property during its original construction. The court held that New Hampshire’s statute of repose did not apply to the manufacturer because it was not involved in incorporating its product into the property. In 2012, Chad St. Francis purchased a home in Northwood, New Hampshire. The home was originally constructed in 2008, at which time a Broan-Nutone ceiling ventilation fan was installed in the first-floor bathroom. In 2016, a fire occurred at the home. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) provided property casualty insurance for the home and paid Mr. St. Francis for the damage. In 2017, USAA filed a subrogation lawsuit against Broan-Nutone, alleging that its ceiling fan caused the fire due to a design defect within the product. Broan-Nutone filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that USAA’s action was barred by New Hampshire’s statute of repose for improvements to real property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---