Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

December 19, 2018 — Tracey W. Pruiett - Smith Currie
Encountering an unexpected site condition is one of the more common risks on a construction project. A “differing site condition”, or it is sometimes called a “changed condition”, is generally understood to be a physical condition that is discovered while performing work and that was not visible or otherwise expected at the time of bidding. Often, the condition could not have been discovered by a reasonable site investigation. Examples of common differing site conditions include: soil with inadequate bearing capacity to support the building being constructed, soil that cannot be reused as structural fill, unanticipated groundwater, quicksand, mud, rock formations, or other artificial subsurface obstructions. Differing site conditions may also occur within the walls or ceilings of a renovation project such as the renovation of a hospital or historic building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracey W. Pruiett, Smith Currie
Ms. Pruiett may be contacted at twpruiett@smithcurrie.com

Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

March 11, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the trial court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found the insurer must defend a cross-claim against the insured owner of a building after an explosion occurred. LBC, LLC v Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2023 Wis. App. LEXIS 1251 (Wis. Ct. App, Nov. 30, 2023). LBC leased commercial property to Spectrum. Spectrum stored lithium on the property. The lithium exploded when it came into contact with water that entered the premises during historic flooding in August 2018. Spectrum remediated the premises, vacated the premises prior to the lease's termination date, and stopped paying rent. LBC sued Spectrum, alleging that Spectrum negligently stored the lithium and that Spectrum breached the lease. Spectrum counterclaimed, alleging that LCB breached the lease in various respects, that LCB negligent allowed water to infiltrate the premises, and that Spectrum was constructively evicted. LCB tendered the counterclaim to its insurer, General Casualty. The tender was denied and LCB sued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:

A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

May 13, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Puccini, LLC, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 1487, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D 383, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals considered whether a landlord’s carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), was precluded from pursuing a subrogation claim against the landlord’s tenant, Puccini, LLC (Puccini), for fire-related damages. After the fire, Zurich paid its insured, Lincoln-Drexel Waserstein, Ltd. (Lincoln), over $2.1 million. Zurich then proceeded with an action against Puccini. Puccini filed for summary judgment arguing that it was an additional insured under the Zurich policy. The trial court agreed with Puccini and dismissed the action. Zurich then appealed the case to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals. Finding that the lease contemplated both liability on the part of the tenant and indemnification in favor of the landlord, the court held that the tenant was not an implied co-insured under Zurich’s policy. Thus, the court allowed Zurich’s subrogation action. The Sutton Doctrine Extension of the Anti-Subrogation Rule In the United States, most states have adopted an anti-subrogation rule either by statute or through common law. Under an anti-subrogation rule, an insurer may not pursue its insured for monies paid to the insured. While some states limit their anti-subrogation rule to apply only to the named insured, other states have expanded the rule to include parties listed as additional insureds, and even, in some instances, implied insureds (those parties not specifically listed, but still considered an insured under the applicable policy). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
California recently passed AB 1794, which authorized the Employment Development Department to share information it received on new hires with other agencies. The bill also allows the Contractors State License Board to audit members based on this information to determine if contractors are engaging in workers’ compensation fraud. Writing on the Cumming & White construction litigation blog, Iman Reza notes that “the new law is intended to deter contractors from cutting corners in underreporting employees.” The CSLB will be able to discipline contractors who seek to gain an illegitimate competitive advantage by circumventing the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

April 25, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
While I have focused on the recent “pay if paid” legislation in recent posts, the Virginia General Assembly has taken other action that is of interest to those of us that represent construction professionals in Virginia. One such action is yet another tweak to the so-called “wage theft” statute that essentially made a general contractor the guarantor of all wage payments of its downstream construction partners. The first of the tweaks to the statute passed in 2020 was to create a defense for a general contractor if it obtained a written certification of wage payment from its immediate downstream subcontractor. This year, the General Assembly expanded the protection provided by such certification to all subcontractors. In other words, any contractor or subcontractor can now protect itself from wage theft claims by the use of a certification that all wages were paid from its immediate downstream partner. The text of the changes can be found here. [note that the Governor has sent suggested grammatical amendments that did not affect the substance] 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

No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

August 24, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court denied two plaintiffs' claims for breach of the policy and for bad faith because they were not insureds under the policy. Tu v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115200 (N.D. Calif. July 24, 2017). Dongbu, a Hawaii insurance company, issued a two-year policy to Plaintiff Ken Tu for his business. He was the only named insured under the policy. The waste system at Plaintiffs' restaurant failed, causing fumes to impact neighboring tenants and waste to contaminate the underlying soil. Plaintiffs were forced to close the restaurant. A claim was tendered for damage and repair, loss of business income, and other insured losses. Dongbu denied coverage. 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

"Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

August 31, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted, in part, the insured's motion for summary judgment seeking coverage for a collapse of a church's ceiling. Derbyshire Baptist Church v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Distl LEXIS 113346 (E.D. Va. June 29, 2020). A large portion of the sanctuary ceiling of the insured's church collapsed. A claim was filed with the insurer. The insurer hired a forensic engineer who found the collapse was caused by the disconnection of wire support hangers from the wood roof beams. Further, "the redistribution of load on the hangers resulted in a progressive failure of the hangers and their supported components." Based on these findings, the insurer denied coverage. The policy excluded coverage for collapse, but in the Additional Coverage portion of the policy, collapse caused by "decay that is hidden from view" was covered. The court pondered the meaning of "decay," which was not defined in the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES