Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

September 14, 2020 — Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & Abramson
In our previous alert, we discussed the expansion on the Section 889(a)(1)(B) ban on certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services to contractors and subcontractors who use the equipment and services in their internal operations. Effective August 13, 2020, federal agencies were prohibited from procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing a contract with a contractor that uses equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or as critical technology, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. Since then we have received feedback from contractors, complaining about the difficulties in determining whether their internal operations use covered telecommunications equipment and services and the need for additional time to become compliant or even obtain enough information to submit a waiver request. Now it seems that Department of Defense (DoD) contractors and subcontractors may be getting a temporary reprieve. The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment requested a waiver that would allow DoD to continue to execute procurement actions providing supplies, equipment, services, food, clothing, transportation, care, and support necessary to execute the DoD mission. The Director of National Intelligence granted the temporary waiver until September 30, 2020 pending a further review of waiver request. Depending upon the outcome of this additional review, the temporary waiver may be continued beyond September 30, 2020 if it is in the national security interests of the United States. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

May 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) jointly “released the National Healthy Housing Standard, which provides recommendations for the maintenance and condition of occupied dwellings,” reported Big Builder. According to Big Builder, “The standard's provisions aim to fill gaps where there are no property maintenance policies and to complement the International Property Maintenance Code and other federal, state, and local policies in place regarding the upkeep of existing homes.” Some of the recommendations included room access to daylight, no or low-VOC building materials, and water management. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline

June 07, 2021 — J. Kyle Janecek - Newmeyer Dillion
Recently, ransomware has taken to the forefront in national news. The most prevalent ransomware attack, the one perpetrated against Colonial Pipeline by the now-defunct "Dark Side" hackers, has served to remind businesses about the risks of ransomware. What happened to Colonial Pipeline? What should businesses do to learn from Colonial Pipeline's response? What should a business avoid? What happened to Colonial Pipeline? Colonial Pipeline, a Georgia based operator of fuel pipelines, had its billing software compromised by Dark Side's ransomware attack.1 Following this, Colonial Pipeline took proactive measures to (1) shut down their systems; (2) evaluate the issue; and (3) safely brought systems back on line after ensuring that they were not compromised. Following this, Colonial Pipeline did eventually pay the 4.4 million dollar ransom demand from Dark Side. What it got in return was a decryption key, as promised, which ended up being slower than Colonial Pipeline's own backups.2 The ultimate result of this event being an initial cost of $4.4 million, in addition to lost profits, additional security costs, reputational costs, and litigation costs as consumers had filed a class-action lawsuit to hold Colonial Pipeline accountable for their perceived lapse in security.3 Further, the fall-out from Colonial Pipeline had prompted additional cybersecurity efforts and changes by the Biden administration, including proposed regulations requiring pipeline companies to inform the Department of Homeland Security of cybersecurity incidents within 12 hours, in addition to keeping a cybersecurity coordinator on staff at all times, and reviews of current security measures. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com

General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

October 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. 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

Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

June 21, 2021 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The May 3 collapse of an elevated section of the Line 12 subway in Mexico City that killed 26 passengers appears to have resulted from multiple construction faults, according to a risk management firm's preliminary report. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014

January 13, 2014 — CDJ STAFF
Construction Digital reports that five regions should see a boom in residential construction in 2014, based on research from McGraw-Hill Construction. According to the report, the rise in residential construction is likely to be as much as 26% in single-family housing, with an 11% rise expected in multi-family housing. The regions that should benefit the most from these are Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Denver, and Los Angeles. Cities that want to be in on the 2014 boom are advised to “lower permit fees,” offer “construction grants and loans,” and to get the word out to contractors that the area is going to provide a favorable environment for contractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

January 11, 2021 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Auburn Woods HOA v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.5th 717 (October 28,2020) (certified for partial publication), the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith brought by Auburn Woods Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and property manager, Frei Real Estate Services (“FRES”) against State Farm and the HOA’s broker, Frank Lewis. The parties’ dispute arose out of the tender of two different lawsuits filed against the HOA and FRES by Marva Beadle (“Beadle”). The first lawsuit was filed by Beadle as the owner of a condominium unit against the HOA and FRES for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an accounting related to amounts allegedly owed by Beadle to the HOA as association fees. The second lawsuit filed by Beadle was for the purpose of setting aside a foreclosure sale, cancelling the trustee’s deed and quieting title, and for an accounting and injunctive relief against an unlawful detainer action filed by Sutter Group, LP against Beadle. The complaint filed in the second lawsuit alleged that Allied Trustee Services caused Beadle’s property to be sold at auction and that Sutter Capital Group, LP purchased the unit and obtained a trustee’s deed upon sale. Beadle claimed the assessments against her were improper and the trustee’s deed upon sale was wrongfully executed. Beadle sought an order restoring possession of her unit and damages. The HOA and FRES tendered both lawsuits to State Farm. As respects the first lawsuit, State Farm denied coverage of the lawsuit based on the absence of alleged “damages” covered by the policy issued to the HOA affording liability and directors and officers (“D&O”) coverages. State Farm agreed to defend the HOA under the D&O coverage in the second lawsuit. However, State Farm denied coverage of FRES in both lawsuits as it did not qualify as an insured under the State Farm policy issued to the HOA. Subsequently, the HOA and FRES filed an action against State Farm arguing that a duty to defend was triggered under its policy for the first lawsuit and a duty to defend FRES was also owed under the D&O policy for the second lawsuit. After a bench trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm based on the failure of the first lawsuit to allege damages covered by the State Farm policy under the liability and D&O coverages afforded by the policy. As respects the second lawsuit, the trial court held that FRES did not qualify as an insured and State Farm did not act in bad faith by refusing to pay the HOA’s alleged defense costs in the second lawsuit before it agreed to defend the HOA against such lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

June 29, 2017 — Nicole Rodolico, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal (“Third District”) recently addressed the applicable statute of limitations for repairs under Section 95.11, Florida Statutes, including the issue of whether a repair constitutes an improvement to real property. In Companion Property & Casualty Group v. Built Tops Building Services, Inc., No. 3D16-2044, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6584 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2017) (“Companion”), the Third District ruled that the trial court erred in finding that a subrogation action arising out of an alleged defective roof repair was time-barred because the statute of limitations had run. On February 8, 2016, Companion Property & Casualty Group (“Companion”) filed its complaint against a building services company, Built Tops Building Services, Inc. (“Built Tops”), for negligent repair of its insured’s roof. Companion alleged that the defective roof repair was performed on November 21, 2006. Companion further alleged that as a result of Built Tops’ work, the insured suffered water damage to the condominium building on February 9, 2012. Built Tops moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the applicable four-year statute of limitations had run on Companion’s claim, which Built Tops argued accrued on the date the repair was performed, November 21, 2006. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Rodolico, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Ms. Rodolico may be contacted at nicole.rodolico@csklegal.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES