Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

November 08, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (October 13, 2021) - In late September 2021, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Sample Letter providing guidance to companies on how their climate disclosures will be analyzed for compliance with material risk reporting obligations. The Sample Letter precedes the SEC’s issuance of mandatory climate-related disclosure rules anticipated by year-end and signals a greater focus on specific information used to support securities filings, a development that businesses should take seriously. The Sample Letter builds on climate change guidance the SEC issued in 2010 and identifies nine categories of disclosures the SEC suggests may be material risks that must be disclosed. These include:

Consistency between a company’s corporate social responsibility report and its SEC filings;
Risks associated with climate-related legislation, regulation, or policy, and resulting compliance costs;
Litigation risks related to climate change; and
Risks linked to an array of operational and market factors, including capital expenditures, continuity of business operations, supply chain stability, changing demand, reputation, availability of credit and insurance, and other climate-change related potential impacts on the financial condition of the company.

Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims

November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith. In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

March 12, 2015 — Elizabeth P. Trent and Leah B. Mason – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest on costs in personal injury actions. In Bean, an employee of defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation (Pacific Coast) drove his vehicle into plaintiff Daniel William Bean’s truck while Bean was stopped at a red light. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. A jury found Pacific Coast negligent and awarded Bean $1,271,594.74 in damages. This amount exceeded Bean’s $999,999.00 statutory offer to compromise issued to Pacific Coast prior to trial, which Pacific Coast rejected. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth P. Trent, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Trent may be contacted at etrent@hbblaw.com Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

December 23, 2023 — Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth’s Construction team is pleased to announce the release of our 2023-2024 edition of the 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide. The Guide provides the general time requirements for filing lien notices in each state, plus Washington, DC. Reprinted courtesy of Seyfarth Shaw LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

September 20, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
My colleagues Rina Carmel, Karin Aldama and I authored an article entitled, "To Settle or Not to Settle? Bad-Faith Implications in Resolving Underlying Actions." The article appears in the current edition of Coverage, published by the Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee of the ABA. The article is here. The article addresses the obstacles faced when settling liability claims. The insurer and insured may have fundamental disagreements on whether to settle or how much to pay in settlement. Should the insured contribute to the settlement? Whether the insurer should seek from the policyholder, or the policyholder offers to make, a settlement contribution presents thorny issues, including whether such a contribution can convert an excess demand into a demand within limits—which, in turn, affects the standard for evaluating the insurer’s response to the third-party demand. On the other hand, the policy holder may not want to settle and set a bad precedent. 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

2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

June 06, 2018 — Melinda S. Gentile - Peckar & Abramson
The 2018 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Florida Governor Rick Scott has 15 days to act on the legislation once each Bill has passed the House and Senate. Bills signed by the Governor go into effect on July 1, 2018, unless indicated otherwise. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melinda Gentile, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage

July 16, 2023 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

September 20, 2017 — Engineering News-Record
The Dept. of Homeland Security has awarded eight contracts to companies to develop prototypes for the Trump administration’s proposed wall along sections of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The contracts are divided evenly between concrete and nonconcrete options. DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency didn’t specify what sort of materials would be used in the nonconcrete barriers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES