Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

July 26, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no duty to defend a suit for bodily injury against the additional insured where the injury was not caused by the insured. Consigli Constr. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95339 (D. Mass. June 21, 2017). Consigli was the general contractor for a renovation project at a high school. Among the subcontractors was American Environmental, Inc., who was responsible for demolishing concrete floors within the existing structures, and Costa Brothers, who did the masonry work. Wellington M. Ely was an employee of Costa Brothers and worked as a mason on the project. Costa Brothers had a CGL policy with Travelers. As a subcontractor, Costa Brothers agreed to name Consigli as an additional insured on its policy. 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

Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

December 30, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction liens can include unpaid finance charges. But, what about late fees? You know, the late fees that certain vendors like to include in their contract or purchase order unrelated to finance charges. An added cost for being delinquent with your payment. Can a late fee be tacked onto the lien too? In a recent case, Fernandez v. Manning Building Supplies, Inc., 2019 WL 4655988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a residential owner hired a contractor for a renovation job. The contractor entered into a contract with a material supplier. The terms of the supplier’s contract with the contractor provided that there would be a 1.5% delinquency charge for late payments and it seemed apparent that the delinquency charge was separate from finance charges. Florida Statute s. 713.06(1) provides in relevant portion:

A materialman or laborer, either of whom is not in privity with the owner, or a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor who complies with the provisions of this part and is subject to the limitations thereof, has a lien on the real property improved for any money that is owed to him or her for labor, services, or materials furnished in accordance with his or her contract and with the direct contract and for any unpaid finance charges due under the lienor’s contract.

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

Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

April 20, 2020 — James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
Insurers across the country are nearly universally denying claims for business interruption stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those denials have in turn been met with swift litigation and potential legislative action. The first business interruption coverage lawsuit related to COVID-19 was filed in New Orleans on March 16. There are now no less than 13 such cases nationwide and many more are likely to follow. Further, legislatures in at least seven states are considering legislation that would, to varying degrees, mandate business interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, notwithstanding any seemingly contrary policy provisions. From the early stages of the pandemic, we have consistently advised our clients to promptly notify their insurers of all COVID-19 related losses, even where coverage appeared uncertain. The deluge of coverage litigation and contemplated legislation could drastically alter how insurers handle COVID-19 claims. But policyholders who have failed to satisfy policy notice requirements could miss out on the benefits of those changes. Therefore, policyholders would be ill-advised to sit on the sidelines and wait it out. Now, draft Federal legislation appears to add further impetus to instructions to “tender early.” The contemplated “Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020” would reportedly devote billions of dollars of federal funds through a Department of Treasury administered reinsurance program designed to offset losses sustained by insurers who actually pay business interruption losses. The legislation is still taking shape but would reportedly create “a Federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease.” President Trump is also reportedly pressuring insurers to provide business interruption coverage. The massive influx of federal funds and pressure from the White House could encourage insurers to reconsider denials of COVID-19 business interruption claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com

Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

January 04, 2021 — Kathleen A. Nelson & Jonathan R. Missen - Lewis Brisbois
The law in the State of Washington, albeit clear on issues regarding first party claimants, was recently challenged in the matter of Eye Associates Northwest, P.C. v. Sedgwick et. al. However, despite this challenge of first impression, the court limited the application of the term “first party claimant” (a term of art akin to “insured”) based upon the wording of a loss payee clause, as well as taking into consideration and harmonizing the wording of the leases, other provisions in the policy regarding tenant improvements, and the simple fact that Eye Associates was not named in the policy whatsoever. In Eye Associates, the plaintiff leased office space in a high-rise medical office building, insured by three separate insurance companies. A water loss caused damage to the plaintiff’s leased space, and the plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the building, its insurers, the property manager, a third-party administrator (TPA), and two individual adjusters assigned to inspect and adjust the water loss claim. Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen A. Nelson, Lewis Brisbois and Jonathan R. Missen, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Missen may be contacted at Jonathan.Missen@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

December 04, 2023 — Maya Averbuch & Eric Martin - Bloomberg
Mexico’s president threatened to declare a disputed property owned by Vulcan Materials Co. an environmentally protected area, after failing to reach an agreement with the US construction firm. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Vulcan continued work at the site even while in talks with his government over its potential purchase of the property, which was occupied by Mexican marines in March. Accusing the company of “vile trickery,” AMLO — as the president is known — told reporters Friday that he would act by decree if necessary to halt the destruction in “one of the most beautiful areas in the world.” His comments came a day after Bloomberg reported that the Alabama-based firm was seeking the Biden administration’s protection from what it sees as the threat of a hostile takeover of its property. The 2,400 hectare (5,930 acre) plot south of the resort city of Playa del Carmen includes a port and a quarry. Reprinted courtesy of Maya Averbuch, Bloomberg and Eric Martin, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

June 30, 2016 — Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Court of Appeal of the State of California – First Appellate District in Hassell v. Bird (6/7/16 – Case No. A143233) affirmed an order from a judgment in favor of an attorney and her firm and against a disgruntled former client directing non-party Yelp.com to remove defamatory reviews posted to its site. Attorney Dawn Hassell (“Hassell”) filed suit against Ava Bird (“Bird”) arising out of Hassell’s brief legal representation. The attorney/client relationship lasted a total of 25 days after which Hassell withdrew from the representation because of difficulties communicating with Bird and Bird expressed dissatisfaction with Hassell. When legal representation terminated, Bird had 21 months before the expiration of the statute of limitations on her personal injury claim. Reprinted courtesy of Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

May 30, 2018 — Daniel Garcia - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the notice and repair process set forth in chapter 558, Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” within the meaning of a commercial liability policy issued by Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”) to Altman Contractors, Inc. (“Altman”). The Court found that because the chapter 558 pre-suit process is an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” as included in the definition of “suit” in the policy by C&F to Altman, C&F had a duty to defend Altman during the chapter 558 process, prior to the filing of a formal lawsuit. Chapter 558, titled “Construction Defects,” sets forth procedural requirements before a claimant may file a construction defect action. It requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim on the applicable contractor, subcontractor, supplier, and/or design professional prior to filing a construction defect lawsuit. The legislature intended for Chapter 558 to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in certain construction defect matters allowing an opportunity to resolve the claim without further legal process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Garcia, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Garcia may be contacted at daniel.garcia@grsm.com

OSHA Penalties—What Happened with International Nutrition

April 15, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
For those of you in and around Omaha, you recall the tragic collapse of International Nutrition’s plant in early 2014, killing two workers and injuring several others. OSHA swept onto the scene and issued citations. Surprisingly, the penalties totaled only $120,000. While a large sum, one would think two deaths and a score of injuries would generate a larger fine. International Nutrition appealed the penalties and they have now been reduced to $78,000, about a 1/3 reduction. Below, I’ll set forth what happened. The Original Penalties International Nutrition was originally fined $120,650.00 for citations ranging from willful, serious, to other-than-serious. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES