CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Recent Opinions Clarify Enforceability of Pay-if-Paid Provisions in Construction Contracts

May 29, 2023 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
Several recent opinions and legislative actions have brought the controversial nature of pay-if-paid provisions into focus in early 2023. Pay-if-paid provisions are contractual mechanisms designed to shift the risk of non-payment from General Contractors to lower-tier subcontractors. In other words, pay-if-paid provisions generally do not require payment to downstream subs until after the GC or Prime are themselves paid in-full by the owner. Recent developments reflect the differing approaches taken by courts when addressing pay-if-paid provisions, ranging broadly from prohibition to full enforceability. Other jurisdictions fall somewhere in the middle, viewing such provisions with varying amounts of skepticism on the grounds heir impact on smaller downstream subs is disproportionate and unfair. Pay-if-paid provisions are often contrasted against “pay-when-paid” provisions. Pay-when-paid provisions may require payment within a specified duration but remove the upstream contractor’s payment in-full as a condition precedent. The brief discussion below will not explore pay-when-paid, no damage for delay provisions, or statutory prompt payment acts. Instead, this article serves as a primer on recent legal developments related to pay-if-paid provisions exclusively. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

---

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

---

Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire

April 26, 2021 — The Associated Press (Thomas Adamson & Jeffrey Schaeffer) - Bloomberg
Paris (AP) -- Two years after a fire tore through Paris’ most famous cathedral and shocked the world, French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday visited the building site that Notre Dame has become to show that French heritage has not been forgotten despite the pandemic. Flanked by ministers, architects and the retired French army general who is overseeing the restoration of the 12th-century monument, Macron viewed the progress of the ambitious rebuilding project. He offered the pandemic-weary French public hope that a completion date will arrive one day, if not in the near future. “We're seeing here how, in two years, a huge job has been accomplished,” Macron said, recalling the “emotion” throughout France at the images of flames devouring Notre Dame on April 15, 2019. “We also see what remains to be done.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

---

Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

May 22, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
On May 4, 2023, Montana changed its product liability laws when the Governor signed SB 216, which was effective upon passage and applies to claims that accrue on or after May 4, 2023. Among the changes is the adoption of a sealed container defense and the application of comparative negligence principles in strict liability actions. Montana also adopted a defense based on certain actions not being brought within 10 years. In addition, Montana adopted a rebuttable presumption with respect to a product’s defective condition. A jury must be informed about this rebuttable presumption with respect to certain warnings claims, premarket licensing procedures or claims involving drugs and/or medical devices. The changes to the Montana Code are further described below.

• In situations where there are multiple defendants, a defendant in a strict liability or breach of warranty action may now assert, as a defense, that the damages of the claimant were caused in full or in part by a person with whom the claimant has settled or released from liability. See MCA § 27-1-703(6)(a) (as revised). Comparative negligence or fault defenses are also available in actions against sellers, even where there are not multiple defendants. See MCA § 27-1-719(4)(e) (discussing a seller’s defenses in situations other than multiple defendant situations) (as revised).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

January 08, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We lawyers do a fair amount of reading. Documents. Court decisions. Passive aggressive correspondence from opposing counsel. As well as statutes, regulations and administrative guidance. And you might be surprised how often words can be ascribed very different meanings depending on who is reading it. Such, I suppose, is the nature of language. When it comes to public agency interpretations of its own regulations, however, you would be well to heed that authors are often the best interpreters of their own works, or at least that’s how the courts tend to view it, as in the next case L & S Framing Inc. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C096386 (July 24, 2023). The L & S Framing Case Martin Mariano, an employee of L & S Framing, Inc., suffered a brain injury when he fell from the “second floor” while working on a single family house. What, exactly, this “second floor” was, was a point of a contention in the legal case that followed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

April 20, 2020 — Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh & Amanda Tharpe - Lewis Brisbois
Earlier this week, a rumor made the rounds that a forthcoming Presidential Executive Order would impose a nationwide mandate that all employees work remotely. While the rumor proved baseless, it raised questions about manufacturers’ abilities to comply with environmental permit obligations in the event of a COVID-19 precipitated operational shutdown due to federal or state mandates or workforce depletion resulting from widespread illness. Previous emergencies offer some insights on what to expect as companies and their counsel assess environmental business risk. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive or modify requirements, issue emergency permits, or expedite permits as needed to respond to disaster and recovery needs. In the end, no new legislation was enacted, because existing emergency powers under environmental statutes proved sufficient to allow for waiver of regulatory requirements or exercise of enforcement discretion. Key provisions include the following:

• The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) affirmative defense for “upset” conditions. This provision excuses non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations due to factors outside the permittee’s control. Criteria for establishing the defense include: 1) the upset occurred and the permittee can identify the cause, 2) the permitted facility was at the time being properly operated, 3) the permittee submitted notice of the upset (24 hour notice), and 4) the permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 C.F.R. §122.41(d).

Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh and Amanda Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. William may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Amanda may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

March 04, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week in Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. that two insurers must contribute proportionally to the defense of an additional insured under their comprehensive liability policies. In 2008, torrential rainstorms battered the Milwaukee area for two days. The downpour overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, causing significant flooding in homes throughout the region. Out of those floods sprang several lawsuits against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”) for negligent inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of Milwaukee’s sewage system. MMSD was an additional insured under liability policies covering two other water service providers responsible for the city’s sewer systems. The first policy was issued by Greenwich Insurance Company for United Water Services Milwaukee, LLC, and the second was issued by Steadfast Insurance Company for Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC. After learning of the lawsuits, MMSD tendered its defense of the sewage suits to both insurers. Steadfast accepted the defense; but Greenwich refused, claiming that its policy was excess to Steadfast’s based on an “other insurance” clause in Greenwich’s policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insolvency of Primary Carrier Does Not Invoke Excess Coverage

January 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured failed to present any argument for excess coverage after the insolvency of the primary carrier. Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20625 (10th Cir. Nov. 27, 2015). Montello distributed an oil drill containing asbestos between 1966 and 1985. Montello was sued by individuals claiming injuries due to exposure to the asbestos. Montello was insured by The Home Insurance Company from March 1975 to March 1984. In 2003, Home was declared insolvent. Home did not pay any claims for bodily injury on Montello's behalf. 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

---