Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

December 10, 2024 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
In a previous post, we discussed delays on construction projects including (1) critical versus non-critical delays, (2) excusable versus non-excusable delays, and (3) compensable versus non-compensable delays. We also reviewed the common methods of delay analysis include (1) the Total Cost Method, (2) the Modified Total Cost Approach, and (3) the Measured Mile Method. Once you have determined the type of delay and the method to be used to analyze and quantify the delay, it is important to understand the type of documents/evidence needed to support your claim for delay. If a party determines that they are entitled to some type of recovery for the delay, the party making a claim for delay, such as a contractor, must have the proper documentation/evidence to assist in proving entitlement for damages from the delay. Without the proper back-up, contractors are generally unable to recover all of the additional costs and expenses associated with the delays or, at best, recover only an “equitable” amount. Generally, damages must be proved with reasonable certainty and may not be based on speculation or conjecture. Thus, it is crucial for a party asserting a delay to have the proper documentation to support a delay claim, if the goal is to recover the damages associated with the delay. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Relying upon the same case cited by the Hawaii Supreme Court in its seminal decision on duty to defend, the federal district court determined the allegations sufficiently established a duty to defend construction defect claims. Voeller Constr. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61862 (M. D. Fla. May 5, 2014). The Bay Harbor Clearwater Condominium Association, Inc. sued Voeller Construction for statutory breach of warranty and building code violations which allegedly caused damage to the condominium structure. The complaint alleged that the damage was unknown to the unit owners at the time they purchased their units. The project was completed in 2007. Expert reports attached to the complaint listed July 7, 2010, as the earliest date of discovery of the damage to the property. The CGL policies were effective from January 24, 2007 to May 9, 2009. Therefore, the insurer argued there was no coverage because the alleged "property damage" was discovered for more than one year after the policies expired. The court determined there was a duty to defend. Citing Trizec Props., Inc. v. Biltmore Constr. Co., 767 F.2d 810 (11th Cir. 1985), the court noted that if the complaint alleged facts which created potential coverage under the policy, the duty to defend was triggered. The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Trizec and made the same ruling in Dairy Road Partners v. Island Ins Co., Ltd., 92 Haw. 398, 412, 992 P.2d 93, 107 (2000). 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 Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

March 08, 2021 — Joseph P. Paranac Jr. & Robert M. Pettigrew - White and Williams LLP
On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) updated its existing guidelines concerning coronavirus protection measures for the workplace. Focusing on the implementation of workplace protection programs, OSHA’s updated advisory guidance seeks to reinforce the benefits of implementing workplace policies along with the critical role employees have in combatting workplace spread. These guidelines are “intended to inform employers and workers in most workplace settings outside of healthcare to help them identify risks of being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 at work and to help them determine appropriate control measures to implement.” OSHA maintains that the implementation of a strong coronavirus protection program is the most effective way to combat virus spread in the workplace. OSHA has identified 16 categories or elements that an effective coronavirus protection program should address, which include appointing a workplace coordinator and conducting a workplace specific hazard assessment. This assessment should begin by identifying risks in the workplace and developing control measures to mitigate them. The guidance stresses that workers are often the most valuable source of information relating to conditions that contribute to the risk of spread. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph P. Paranac Jr., White and Williams LLP and Robert M. Pettigrew, White and Williams LLP Mr. Paranac may be contacted at paranacj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Pettigrew may be contacted at pettigrewr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

March 11, 2024 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
Recent reforms to certain state retainage laws have reduced the lawful amount of withholding permitted on construction projects. In theory, retainage allows an owner to mitigate the risk of incomplete or defective work by withholding a certain portion of payment until the construction project is substantially complete. Recent statutory developments in Washington, New York, and Georgia represent significant changes in how much an owner may retain on applicable construction projects in those jurisdictions. The details of each state’s retainage laws vary in many important respects. Most states set caps at 5% or 10%, with important variations depending on the type of project and the amount of progress completed. Some states require retainage to be held in an escrow account, but most do not. Many federal construction projects allow up to 10% retainage, while other federal agencies do not require any retention. See 48 CFR § 52.232-5(e) - Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. The ongoing motivation for retainage reform is typically framed in terms of reducing delays in getting payment to subcontractors who complete their scope of work on time and free from defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/23/23) – Distressed Prices, Carbon Removal and Climate Change

June 05, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In this week’s roundup, we consider distressed property bonds and loans, cities that are sinking under their own skyscrapers, efforts to lower carbon emissions, the unexpected potential of dirty diapers as a building material, and so much more. Globally, more than $190 billion of property bonds and loans are trading at distressed prices, a result of China’s real estate woes. (Alice Huang and Erin Hudson, Bloomberg) PacWest Bancorp sees a stock market boost as it announces the sale of its real estate loans, valued at around $2.6 billion. (Jaiveer Shekhawat and Chibuike Oguh, Reuters) New construction home sales exceeded expectations for April while existing home sales dropped. (Anna Bahney, CNN) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

July 25, 2021 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
A federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., sentenced Casey David Crowther, 35, the owner of a successful Florida roofing contracting company, to 37 months in prison for using fictitious employee lists to obtain a $2.7-million federal pandemic-aid loan and then purchasing a $689,000 boat with the funds. Reprinted courtesy of 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

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES