Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Get Construction Defects in Writing

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Sometimes, even if a developer is willing to make a repair, sometimes the repair doesn’t get to the actual problem, according to Nicholas D. Cowie of Cowie & Mott, writing on his blog. He notes that “getting it ‘right’ the first time is important and written documentation is key.” He gives the example of “when a developer agrees to informally repair a window or roof leak, the ‘repair,’ as far as the developer is concerned, may consist merely of sending out a worker with a caulk gun to seal gaps that should have been protected with a solid flashing material during the original installation.” As a better course, he says that homeowner associations should “request a written description of the proposed repair” in order that it can be evaluated. This also allows follow-up to determine if the agreed-upon repair was done properly. And, although some homeowners associations would rather not have the original subcontractor repair their own work, here warranties often come into play. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

November 25, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A contractor which designed and constructed a hydroelectric plant in Guatemala sued under the Federal Arbitration Act in federal court in Florida to overturn a project-related arbitration decision, “on the basis that the Tribunal had exceeded its powers.” That petition was denied based upon Eleventh Circuit precedent which foreclosed that challenge under the FAA for an arbitration conducted “under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,” a.k.a., the “New York Convention.” The U. S. 11th Circuit initially affirmed the lower court decision, but then upon an en banc rehearing reversed: holding that in a New York Convention case where the arbitration seat is in the U. S., or where United States law governs the arbitration conduct, “Chapter 1 of the FAA provides the grounds for vacatur of the arbitral award. … § 208 of the FAA provides that ‘Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under [Chapter 2] to the extent that chapter is not in conflict with [Chapter 2] or the [New York] Convention as ratified by the United States.’ …Chapter 1 of the FAA… thus acts as a gapfiller and provides the vacatur grounds for an international arbitration award otherwise governed by Chapter 2.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Supreme Court’s New York Harbor Case Isn’t a ‘Sopranos’ Episode

August 03, 2022 — Stephen L. Carter - Bloomberg
The long-simmering harbor dispute between New York and New Jersey has observers reaching for illustrations from “The Sopranos” and “On the Waterfront.” But now that the US Supreme Court has agreed to adjudicate the spat, I wonder whether a more useful resource might be “The Paper Chase.” The disagreement stems from New Jersey’s determination to exit the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, an entity established by the two states back in 1953 in response to news reports of widespread corruption and violence among those who loaded and unloaded ships. New Jersey argues that as a sovereign state, it can’t be forced to remain in the pact forever. New York replies that the deal has the force of law and neither state can quit without the permission of the other. (And Congress!) The Supreme Court is now involved because that’s the venue the Constitution prescribes when one state sues another. Four days before New Jersey’s announced departure date of March 28, the justices issued an injunction preventing the move. This week they agreed to adjudicate the dispute and set an accelerated schedule for briefs and oral argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen L. Carter, Bloomberg

US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed

August 14, 2023 — Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
In a ruling without explanation in response to an emergency appeal by the project developer, the U.S. Supreme Court on July 27 said work to complete the Mountain Valley gas pipeline can proceed. The decision follows an order earlier this month by the Richmond, Va., appeals court to halt restart of work on the much-litigated and delayed $6.6-billion, 303-mile natural gas pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia, after new lawsuits filed by opponent groups. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

September 28, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A D.C. Superior Court rejected a business interruption claim due to closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, Civil Case No 2020 CA 002424 B (Order dated Aug. 8, 2020). The decision is here. Plaintiffs owned a number of restaurants in the District of Coiumbia. Plaintiffs had commercial property coverage in a policy issued by Erie. The policy provided coverage for loss of income sustained due to interruption of business resulting directly from "loss or damage" to the insured property. DC Mayor Bowser issued a series of orders in March 2020 which closed all non-essential businesses, including plaintiffs' restaurants. Plaintiffs filed claims with Erie. When coverage was denied, plaintiffs filed suit. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The dispute centered on whether the closure of the restaurants due to the mayor's orders constituted a "direct physical loss" under the policy. Plaintiffs argued that the loss of use of the restaurants was "direct" because the closures were the direct result of the mayor's orders without intervening action. The court reasoned, however, that the orders were governmental edicts that commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions. Standing alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not effect any direct changes to the properties. 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

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

October 18, 2021 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that six Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2021 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list. 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers

Jonathan Harwood – Professional Liability
Lisa Rolle – Construction Litigation
Christopher Russo – Professional Liability
Lisa Shrewsberry – Professional Liability
Stephen Straus – Insurance Coverage
Richard Traub – Insurance Coverage

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

August 16, 2021 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained a motion to dismiss in favor of an international hotel chain. In the case brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury in a Portuguese hotel (“Hotel”), which was allegedly caused by violations of building codes and New York and Portuguese negligence laws. The Plaintiff notes that the Hotel utilized the branding affiliated with the international hotel chain, and the named corporate entities are subsidiaries of the parent company of the international hotel chain. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the named corporate entities “owned, operated, maintained, and controlled” the Hotel where the accident occurred, as the international hotel had previously acquired the entity which owned the spa branding utilized. In moving for pre-answer dismissal, Traub Lieberman acknowledged purchase of the managing agent of the Hotel, which became a subsidiary of their operations. However, Traub Lieberman asserted that the international hotel chain had not owned, operated, maintained, or managed the Hotel. Under New York law, parent corporations cannot be held liable for the actions of their subsidiaries, except in cases that support piercing the corporate veil. Traub Lieberman argued that the motion should be granted as a parent company cannot be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary and further claimed that the parent company has never owned or operated the Hotel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES