Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

January 27, 2010 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

In the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.

In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.

Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is

Read the full story...

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

Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

October 01, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
To start our week off right, today we have another important article from guest blogger Christopher G. Hill, LEED AP. Chris is a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, construction lawyer and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. He authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals. His practice concentrates on mechanic’s liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals. [His blog was also one of the first construction law blogs I found and followed, even if he is a Duke alum!] Take it away, Chris! First and foremost, thanks to Melissa for inviting me back to post here at her great blog. She continues to invite me back despite my being a Blue Devil (and I try not to hold her Tar Heel status against her). So much of discussion relating to construction law and construction lawyers centers on the litigation of disputes. This discussion comes in many forms from avoidance of such litigation through the early intervention of good counsel prior to getting into a project to what sort of resolution mechanism to use. Another branch of this discussion is essentially the right way to pursue your claim (or as some may read it start the dispute ball rolling). Sometimes a payment bond claim is the best method while others a straight up contractual suit is the best way to go. Of course, all of this discussion presumes that there will be disputes. While I agree to some degree that in the Murphy’s Law riddled world of commercial construction, problems will arise. These problems need not rise to the level of a dispute that requires outside (read court or arbitrator) intervention. A few tips that are easy to write, but admittedly hard to practice at times can hopefully keep problems from blossoming into disputes. I’ve listed three big ones here: 1.Use “in house counsel.” Yes, I know that most of you engineers, architects, commercial general contractors and subcontractors out there aren’t big enough to either want or need a full time attorney on the payroll. What I mean by this is that when problems occur (or preferably before doing so), give your friendly local construction lawyer a call. As I learned from my dad, an ounce of prevention and all that. That 10 minute phone call may help avoid many hours of time and bills from your attorney later down the road. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

April 05, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

Read the full story...

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

Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

October 19, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied the brokers' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal from claims that they inadequately advised the insured of the law regarding construction defects in Hawaii. Am Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148571. Safeway sued Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB) and others for construction defects in a newly constructed store. The underlying complaint alleged products liability claims against HNB as the distributor of the "VersaFlex Coating System." HSB had represented that the coating system was adequate for its intended use. The underlying complaint alleged failure of the VersaFlex Coating System in waterproofing the roof deck of the store. After the store opened, water leaks from the roof deck appeared. Safeway alleged they were caused by the cracks and failures in the waterproof membrane in the roof deck. HNB notified its insurers of the claims. The insurers defended HNB during the litigation subject to reservation of rights letters. 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

Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015). Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007. Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied. 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

Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

February 15, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:

Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).

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

SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

April 11, 2022 — Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposal March 21—both anticipated and feared—that would require publicly-traded companies to standardize disclosure for the first time of climate-related business risks such as those related to severe weather and decarbonization. Exchange-listed firms would also have to report greenhouse gas emissions, their own and in the supply chain, creating a major reporting mandate. The rules also apply to firms listed on overseas exchanges that operate in the U.S. 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

Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.” “The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES