Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
While many state Supreme Courts have determined that faulty construction work can be an occurrence under a standard commercial liability policy, the Alabama Supreme Court has taken the contrary view. Writing on the Kilpatrick Townsend blog, Carl A. Salisbury and Edmund M. Kneisel point out that the decision makes Alabama “an outlier,” and they ask, “how much longer will the outliers hold out?” They note that in the underlying construction defect case, “the arbitrator awarded $3 million in compensatory damages to the homeowners because of improperly installed flashing; improperly installed brick; the lack of weep holes in the brick; improperly installed doors and windows; improper construction of the upper porches; faulty construction of the roof; improper installation of a bathtub.” They summarize: “the house must have leaked like a colander.” When the insurer denied coverage, the contractor sued. The insurer argued that “the CGL policy form does not cover construction-related acts or omissions because such acts are not an insured ‘occurrence.’” Mr. Salisbury and Mr. Kneisel point out that “the Alabama Supreme Court agreed.” The problem they see is that “if there is no insurance for any intentional act, then insurance is simply a rip-off — it covers nothing.” They quote Justice Benjamin Cardozo to this effect: “To restrict insurance to cases where liability is incurred without fault of the insured would reduce indemnity to a shadow.” Their argument is that the Alabama decision was not the “correct position,” as exemplified by recent decisions from West Virginia, North Dakota, Connecticut and Georgia. The case “was a prime opportunity for the Alabama Supreme Court to leave the ranks of the outliers and join the majority view.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

April 20, 2016 — Sho Chandra – Bloomberg
New-home construction in the U.S. slumped more than projected in March, reflecting a broad-based retreat that showed the industry lost momentum heading into the busiest time of year. Residential starts decreased 8.8 percent to a 1.09 million annualized rate that was the lowest since October and weaker than any forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg, Commerce Department data showed Tuesday in Washington. Permits, a proxy for future construction, also dropped. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

July 23, 2014 — Sonja Elmquist – Bloomberg
In March 2013, Mario Longhi lobbed an unexpected question into a roomful of 150 U.S. Steel Corp. managers: Who here would buy the company’s stock, tomorrow? He gave them three seconds, and “only a few reacted in that time frame positively,” Longhi said. Since that meeting, Longhi has been promoted to chief executive officer, and nine months into his tenure he’s closed one plant permanently, two more are temporarily idled and he’s planning to overhaul another. It’s all part of his plan to transform the 144-year-old company into a lean, modern steel producer. Investors are taking note, with the shares up 53 percent since he took over. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sonja Elmquist, Bloomberg
Ms. Elmquist may be contacted at selmquist1@bloomberg.net

Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

December 08, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court limited the number of deductibles to the counterclaims filed against the insured, not the more than 600 plaintiffs who were parties to the three underlying lawsuits. Probuilders Spec. Ins. Co. v. Yarbrough Plastering, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134959 (E.D. Calif. Sept. 29, 2016). Yarbrough entered into contracts with Lenox Homes to provide stucco and drywall services in the homes Lenox would build. Each contract required Yarbrough to indemnify Lenox for any claims resulting from property damage arising out of the performance of the contract. 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

Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

May 24, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). 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

The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

July 19, 2021 — Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
Most construction contracts contain insurance provisions setting forth the insurance required of the contractor or other downstream parties. Some provisions are detailed and lengthy while others are short and sweet, but all are of critical importance and should be fully understood by the contractor before signing the contract. Also, every insured should understand not only what the contract requires but more importantly what the actual policy states, as the policy, not the contract, will govern whether or not there is coverage. It is possible that certificates received will match the contractual requirements, but much of what the policy covers is not reflected on a certificate. Lurking behind the certificate is the policy, which is where the actual coverage lies. The endorsements or exclusions to the policy can make the certificates worthless pieces of paper. There are many exclusions that can cancel coverage for the work a contractor may perform. Height exclusions, residential exclusions, EFIS exclusions and many more, focus on the type of work or materials that the contractor is performing or using. One exclusion, however, focuses on who is insured and that exclusion alone can eliminate all coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com

New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

January 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The new LG headquarters project in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, has been challenged by various environmental groups because of what the groups see “as a blight on the Hudson River landscape,” according to the New York Times. The problem isn’t the building itself, but the proposed height of the tower: LG “plans to construct eight stories, 143 feet total, in an area previously zoned for a maximum of 35 feet. The height restriction was first lifted through a variance, which has been challenged in State Superior Court in one of two lawsuits filed to protect the view. Subsequently the land was rezoned to allow for a taller building.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a New Jersey conservation group are continuing to fight against the removal of the height restriction. “This is like if somebody tried to build a high-rise next to Yellowstone,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview with the New York Times. “It’s a national issue.” However, there is also local support for this project, “which LG has said will be environmentally sensitive and produce jobs,” reported the New York Times. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

June 11, 2014 — Buck Mann – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Mann may be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES