Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

October 07, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

June 21, 2024 — Christian Romaguera - Traub Lieberman
In a lawsuit filed in Orange County, Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera achieved a voluntary dismissal in favor of their Client, a construction company. The Plaintiff claimed that he was seriously and permanently injured, and demanded $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff turned out to be an employee of our Client’s subcontractor, and the Plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits from his employer, the subcontractor. Under Florida Statute § 440.11(1), “The liability of an employer . . . shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee . . .” When a subcontractor provides workers’ compensation benefits to its injured employee, workers’ compensation immunity would not only apply to the subcontractor but to the general contractor as well. This is also known as “vertical immunity.” The Traub Lieberman team filed a detailed motion and memorandum of law to argue its case, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the claim against the Client just before that motion was set to be argued before the Judge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christian Romaguera, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Romaguera may be contacted at cromaguera@tlsslaw.com

Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

June 06, 2018 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In USAA Texas Lloyds Company v. Menchaca, the Supreme Court of Texas clarified long-standing confusion regarding whether damages for bad faith are recoverable in the absence of a breach of contract under Texas law. The Menchaca case takes an in-depth dive into decades’ worth of Texas precedent and concludes that, under certain circumstances, an insured can recover policy benefits as damages for bad faith without finding that the insurer was in breach of contract. The story of this case begins with Hurricane Ike in September 2008. Homeowner Gail Menchaca contacted her homeowner’s insurance company, USAA Texas Llloyds Company (“USAA”) to report that the storm had damaged her home. USAA sent an adjuster to investigate the claim, and USAA determined that although the policy covered some of the damage, no benefits would be paid under the policy because the repair estimate did not exceed the policy deductible. Five months later, at Ms. Menchaca’s request, another USAA adjuster inspected the property and reached the same conclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

Carbon Monoxide Injuries Caused by One Occurrence

April 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning to two families living in the insured's apartment complex arose from a single occurrence. Kosnoski v. Rogers, No. 13-0494, Memorandum and Decision (W. Va. Feb. 18, 2014). The families lived in two apartments in the same complex owed by Marc Rogers. Members of the two families suffered serious injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning and one family member died. A gas boiler furnace in the basement of the apartment complex created the carbon monoxide. 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

Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

October 15, 2024 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Many contractors and owners believe that if they hire an independent contractor to perform work and that independent contractor causes injury to others during the performance of that work, then it is the independent contractor alone who will be liable for those injuries. In most circumstances, this is correct. The owner or the contractor will not be held liable for injuries caused by his or her independent contractor. However, this is not always the case. Under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine” and California cases interpreting the doctrine, a contractor or owner who hires an independent contractor to do work which is considered to be “inherently dangerous work” can be still be held directly liable for damages when that independent contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work. Such liability can generally be imposed on the one hiring the independent contractor under either of two branches of the peculiar risk doctrine. First, where a person hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions must be taken to avert the peculiar risk of injury related to that work, then the one hiring the independent contractor can be held liable for injuries to others caused by the independent contractor’s negligence. (Restatement Second of Torts Section 413). For example, in Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. 101 Cal. App. 3d 774, 162 Cal. Rptr. 64 (1980), Western Electric Company, the owner of the project, was found liable for the personal injuries of a subcontractor’s employee because Western’s representatives were on the job at all times, had doubts about the safety of scaffolding being used on the project, yet failed to require use of precautions that could have been taken to avoid injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

November 06, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
eRent has developed a digital equipment management portal for construction equipment. At the very heart of the concept lies the resource efficiency that can be achieved using principles of the sharing economy. Olli Aaltonen, CEO of eRent Solutions, is confident about the platform his company has created: “Besides offering a digital solution to a rather inefficient workflow in the construction business, we are also introducing a way to track and manage your construction equipment, whether it is owned, rented, or leased. The cost savings are obvious we believe our tracking feature brings our customers even more value.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

August 07, 2018 — Celia B. Waters - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On June 7, 2018, the Second Circuit Court in Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Fla., Dep’t of Fin. Servs.,1 held that a party-appointed arbitrator should not be held to the same standard as a neutral arbitrator. The Court vacated a district court’s order vacating an arbitral award in a reinsurance dispute between Insurance Company of Americas (“ICA”) and Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London (“Underwriters”). The case was one of first impression for the Second Circuit on how to determine the standard of evident partiality challenged to a party-appointed arbitrator. Underwriters reinsured ICA under a series of treaties. The treaties each contained an arbitration clause requiring that disputes be adjudicated by an arbitration panel consisting of three members: one party-appointed arbitrator for each party, and a neutral. The clause required only that the arbitrators “be active or retired disinterested executive officers of insurance or reinsurance companies or Lloyd’s London Underwriters.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Waters may be contacted at cbw@sdvlaw.com

Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

July 10, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Whenever you elect to terminate the other party for cause or for default, you need to JUSTIFY the basis of the cause or default. The reason being is that a termination for default or cause is the harshest contractual remedy. This is why the other party will typically either (i) convert the termination for default into one for convenience, or (ii) if there is no termination for convenience provision in the contract, argue the terminating party breached the contract by terminating the contract without rightful justification. The key is if you are going to terminate a party for cause of default, make sure you have memorialized the persuasive reasons for exercising the termination, and can otherwise reasonably support the justification. Do not, and I repeat, do not haphazardly exercise a termination for default and think you do not have to justify the basis for the termination. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES