CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

August 07, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is excited to announce Las Vegas Partners Devin Gifford and Madeline Arcellana have been selected in the 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Civil Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click here. SELECTED AS RISING STARS Devin Gifford: 2023 Madeline Arcellana: 2023 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Congratulations to Walnut Creek Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling for Winning a Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Their Client, a Regional Grocery Store!

July 05, 2023 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Partner Bryan Stofferahn and Associate Jeffrey Schilling recently won their Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of a prominent Bay Area Grocery Store, and long-time client of the firm. BWB&O’s Client is a regional Grocery Store with locations throughout California and Nevada. The Client was sued in an action pertaining to a claimed dangerous condition of public property, resulting in a vehicle versus pedestrian collision in an intersection, adjacent to a Northern California store of BWB&O’s Client. The Plaintiff asserted our Client allowed the use of the store’s parking lot as a pickup and drop-off location by agricultural laborers, resulting in increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic, which the surrounding streets were not capable of accommodating thereby creating an allegedly dangerous condition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations to Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser for Being Recognized as 2022 Super Lawyers!

February 07, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce that Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser have been named as 2022 Southern California’s Super Lawyers! We are also honored to share that Nicole Whyte is included in two of the top lists, Top 50 Women Lawyers in Southern California and Top 50 Lawyers in Orange County! Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. During the final selection process, only lawyers in the top 5% of the total lawyers in the state are selected to the Super Lawyers list. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment

December 23, 2024 — Lisa M. Rolle & Justyn Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
In this subrogation action brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Dutchess County, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo successfully obtained dismissal of a third-party complaint against their client, a fire-system protection company. In the underlying case, a fire sprinkler system within a commercial building leaked water into multiple tenant spaces, causing damage. The tenants’ insurers alleged that they each paid several hundred thousand dollars to cover their insureds’ claims. The insurers then filed complaints against the company which originally installed the sprinkler (the “Installer”), asserting that the company breached its duty of care. The Installer commenced a third-party action against the property owner and two fire-system protection companies—including Traub Lieberman’s client—who had separately conducted annual inspections of the sprinkler system over the years. The property owner and the two fire-system protection companies each asserted cross-claims against each other. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

September 29, 2021 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. 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

---

South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

July 30, 2014 — Scott Patterson - CD Coverage
In Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 2013-000787 (S.C. Ct. App. July 23, 2014), SYS was the general contractor for a project. SYS contracted with Precision for the supply and installation of exterior insulation board, to include the taping of all joints. After Precision completed its work, another subcontractor began construction of the brick veneer wall over the insulation board. During construction of the brick wall, some of the joint sealing tape installed by Precision began to come loose. To correct the problem, the existing portion of the brick veneer wall had to be torn down, all of the joint sealing tape removed and replaced, and the brick veneer wall rebuilt. SYS deducted the cost of tearing down and rebuilding the brick veneer wall from Precision’s contract. Precision sought reimbursement for this amount from its CGL policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

---

BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

April 01, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court determined that BP was not an additional insured under Transocean's liability policy and had no coverage under the policy for the deaths caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. In re Horizon, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). We have previously posted on this case in the federal courts here and here. Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit operating in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to a contract with BP. After an explosion in April 2010, the rig caught fire, killing eleven crew members. Both Transocean and BP sought coverage under Transocean's primary and excess policies. Although they did not dispute that BP was an additional insured, Transocean and its insurers argued that BP was not entitled to coverage for pollution-related liabilities arising from subsurface oil releases in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident. 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

---