Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

August 03, 2022 — Anne Idsal Austin, Shelby L. Dyl & Sheila McCafferty Harvey - Pillsbury
Takeaways

The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.

Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

August 19, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
First there was “Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Because he Changed His Name to a Symbol), But Then Realized That No One Could Pronounce the Symbol (and What Good is a Symbol if Everyone Has to Wave Their Hands Wildly at You to Get Your Attention or Scream ‘Hey You!’), and So Changed His Name Back to Prince Again.” Whatever name (or symbol) he was going by, everyone knew him as the guy who told us to party like it was 1999 (when 1999 still seemed like the distant future), who sang about a girl with a “pocket full of horses” (which totally flew past my junior high school brain at the time), and gave us such great metaphors as “if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy, punch a higher floor!” Like Prince or his symbol, sometimes it doesn’t matter what label you put on something when everyone knows what that something is. In law, we call it looking at the “substance” rather than its “form.” And, in the next case, Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District made quick work of a purported “lease-leaseback” project – a project delivery method available to school districts whereby a school district leases property it owns to a developer for a minimum of $1, who in turns builds a school facility on the site and leases the facility and the site back to the school district, who in turn takes ownership of the facility and site at the end of the lease – and called it for what it was: a run-of-the-mill “design-bid-build” project. 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

Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

March 21, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A New York contractor was unknowingly uninsured as it worked on 14 Manhattan projects over four years because its insurance broker was pocketing its payments, according to an indictment. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

"Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

June 22, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Montana Supreme Court found that policy language defining "accidents may include intentional acts." Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fisher Builders, Inc., 2016 Mont. LEXIS 269 (Mont. Sup. Ct. April 19, 2016). Jerry and Karen Slack hired Fisher Builders to build a remodeled home located on the site of their home at Flathead Lake. The existing home was an aged vacation home. The County zoning regulations required the remodeled home to incorporate the existing structure. The permit issued to the Slacks required the existing deck to remain unchanged. Fisher elevated the existing home structure on steel beams to pour a new foundation. Fisher began to dismantle the walls while the structure was resting on the beams, and found an infestation of carpenter ants. The ant-infested planks were cut out, apparently in order to salvage what usable materials he could from the remaining structure. The ant-infested boards were subsequently burned. Eventually, the deck collapsed. 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

Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute

April 06, 2020 — Dan Schneider - Newmeyer Dillion
In my earlier article, Profiting From Fear: What You Need to Know About Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Emergency, I discuss price gouging and how the anti-price gouging statute, California Penal Code 396 (“CPC 396”), protects buyers of goods and services deemed vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers. Part II of the article provides guidance to landlords on the parameters applicable to acceptable price increases and focuses attention on the application of CPC 396 to rental housing and related issues. California Penal Code 396 As it pertains to housing, defined as “any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year,” price gouging occurs when a landlord increases the rent of an existing or prospective tenant by more than 10 percent of the previously charged or advertised price following an emergency or disaster declaration for a period of 30 days.2 A residential landlord is only allowed to increase rent in excess of 10 percent if “the increase is directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance that were amortized over the rental term that caused the rent to be increased greater than 10 percent or that an increase was contractually agreed to by the tenant prior to the proclamation or declaration” (CPC 396(e).) Further, landlords are prohibited from evicting a tenant and then re-renting the property at a rate that the landlord would have been prohibited from charging the evicted tenant under the statute (CPC 396(f).)3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dan Schneider, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Schneider may be contacted at daniel.schneider@ndlf.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

February 20, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle & Christopher D. Acosta - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta obtained summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the owner of a premises located in Bronx, New York, in a personal injury case brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The Plaintiff alleged that while leaving the Defendant’s premises, she unexpectedly fell. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff does not know why she fell or identify any defect that may have caused her fall. The Defendant’s witness testified that the route taken by the Plaintiff was free of any defect prior to and on the date of the incident. The witness further testified that the site was also subject to routine inspection leading up to the incident, in which no tripping hazards were observed. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Christopher D. Acosta, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Acosta may be contacted at cacosta@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

September 16, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is best known as the company that got whipsawed between indemnity rules and the lack of a statute of limitations for state agencies. However a recent case out of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave them a win and illustrates, once again, that failing to appear or respond is never a good option. In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial LLC, the Alexandria, VA federal court looked at an arbitration award entered for Hensel Phelps and against Perdomo under the Federal Arbitration Act. The facts of the case showed that Perdomo “double dipped” into the deep end of refusal or failure to respond. First of all, the contract required arbitration and any award was enforceable in any state or federal court having jurisdiction. Based upon this language, Hensel Phelps filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Perdomo and its surety, AAA sent notice to both Perdomo and Surety, and. . . neither responded or appeared at what was ultimately 8 days of hearings. After hearing Hensel Phelp’s evidence and the total lack of defenses from Perdomo and Surety, the panel issued an award in favor of Hensel Phelps, finding Perdomo LLC in default and holding Perdomo LLC and Allied World jointly and severally liable in the amount of $2,958,209.71 and Perdomo LLC individually liable in the amount of $7,917,666.30 plus interest. 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

Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

May 04, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The short story: Construction can resume. The long story: Construction can resume beginning Monday, May 4, 2020, with extensive and detailed restrictions. Six Bay Area Counties Loosen Shelter-in-Place Restrictions Including Allowing Construction to Resume Earlier this week, six Bay Area counties and the City of Berkeley issued new orders requiring the use of face coverings when in public. The six Bay Area counties, which also happen to be the first counties in the nation to issue shelter-in-place orders, are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. When do the revised shelter-in-place orders take effect? The revised shelter-in-place orders take effect at 11:59 p.m. on May 3, 2020 and will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2020 unless extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended. Thus, effectively, the new orders take effect on Monday, May 4, 2020. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES