CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

March 05, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
You know how I’ve stated on many occasions that the contract is king here in Virginia? You know how that included contractual provisions waiving mechanic’s lien rights for subcontractors and suppliers? You know how I thought that the General Assembly would not do anything to make mechanic’s liens in Virginia easier to prosecute? Well, it seems, at least for waivers of mechanic’s lien rights by subcontractors and suppliers (more about general contractors later) I was wrong. This General Assembly session, the Senate introduced a bill, that has now passed both houses as of February 25, 2015, that adds language to Virginia Code Section 43-3 that effectively nullifies any contractual waiver of lien rights prior to any work having been performed by any tier of construction company aside from general contractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

May 15, 2023 — Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The New Jersey Appellate Division in Handy & Harman v. Beazley USA Services, Inc., provided clarity regarding the interpretation of the Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion in a site-specific environmental liability insurance policy. In Handy & Harman, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that the insurer was not required to defend or indemnify its policyholder, a metal etching company. The court held that the Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion (which applied to prior litigation and prior claims) barred coverage for natural resource damages sought in the current litigation because (1) an Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) is a claim; and (2) the underlying lawsuit was based on the same environmental contamination as addressed in the ACO.1 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at SManobianca@sdvlaw.com

---

Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

February 12, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado State Senator Mark Scheffel has removed Senate Bill 13-052 from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s calendar because he feels an upcoming study on construction near transit centers will be important for the consideration of the bill. SB 13-052 would affect construction defect claims in communities that were within a half mile of public transportation. Critics claim it would gut construction defect protections, as even a bus stop would count as a “mass transit center.” Scheffel says he doesn’t know what the study will find, but says that whether he likes or hates it, it will be relevant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

January 19, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
Upcoming blog posts will focus on common contract provisions found in construction contracts. Such provisions are not solely limited to construction contracts and can be found in many other types of business contracts as well. This post will highlight indemnity clauses. An indemnity clause is a common contract provision used to allocate risk between parties to a contract. The clause obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to protect the other party (the Indemnitee) from certain losses, typically arising from claims of third parties. It may require the Indemnitor to reimburse the Indemnitee for losses or expenses, or satisfy judgments, or even defend the Indemnitee in a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

November 08, 2017 — Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier’s property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy. Madeline Chocolate Novelties Inc. (Madeline), a family-owned chocolatier in Queens Rockaway Beach, held a one-year all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance (Great Northern). The policy contained a flood exclusion and a windstorm endorsement. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, Madeline suffered extensive damage and ceased operations during the ensuing holiday season. The chocolatier claimed $40 million in property damage and $13.5 million in business interruption losses and sought coverage under its policy. Great Northern paid just under $4 million and denied the remainder of the claim, citing the policy’s flood exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

---

Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

February 16, 2017 — Engineering News-Record
A federal judge on Feb. 8 dismissed a claim by the state of South Carolina against the U.S. Dept. of Energy over delayed construction of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, near Aiken, S.C. The claim for financial compensation was part of a lawsuit the state filed in February 2016 seeking payment of $1 million per day—or an annual maximum of $100 million—for the MOX facility not producing fuel by Jan. 1, 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

March 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Darin J. McMullen of the firm Anderson Kill explained how a recent opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows “Pennsylvania policyholders” to “more confidently challenge insurance companies’ denials of faulty workmanship claims.” The decision in Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013) “reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies,” according to McMullen. “Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

July 22, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently provided guidance on what does not constitute property damage under a typical contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy in Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co., 224 Conn App. 526 (2024). In this case, the contractor defended construction defect claims brought by an owner and then sued its insurer to recover $500,000 in defense costs for failing to provide a defense under the contractor’s policy. In Connecticut, an insurer is obligated to provide a defense based on what is alleged in a complaint and if it has actual knowledge of any facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage. The contractor provided extrinsic evidence for two defects claimed by the owner: (1) windows were installed improperly such that water was collecting and will continue to collect in the window soffit areas and eventually rot the wall, and (2) the vapor barrier was not installed in the second-floor ceiling which will result in water condensation and water damage to the roof structure if not remedied. The insurer relied on typical provisions included in most CGL policies. The insurer has no duty to defend the insured against any suit seeking damages for property damage to which the insurance does not apply. The term “property damage” is defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.” Under well-established Connecticut law, the phrase “physical injury” unambiguously connotes damage to tangible property, causing an alteration in appearance, shape, color, or some other material dimension. It is also well-established that claims for property damage caused by defective work are covered under a CGL policy but claims for repair of the defective work itself are not. The insurer denied any duty to defend because no coverage was triggered under the liability policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---