Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

March 29, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

December 31, 2024 — Jonathan H. Schaefer - Construction Law Zone
On December 11, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it finalized a revision to the personal protective equipment (PPE) standard for the construction industry. The final rule adds specific language to the existing standard requiring employers to provide properly fitting PPE for construction industry workers. This change aligns the construction industry with the standards in place for the general industry. According to OSHA, many types of PPE must properly fit workers. Improperly sized PPE can ineffectively protect workers, creating new hazards for them, such as oversized gloves or protective clothing being caught in machinery and discouraging use because of discomfort or poor fit. OSHA stated that the longstanding issue with improperly fitting PPE particularly impacted women, as well as physically smaller or larger workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan H. Schaefer, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Schaefer may be contacted at jschaefer@rc.com

Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Belgravia Condominium Association, a group of condo owners in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have secured a $5.05 million judgment against the contractor who converted their 1902 building into condominiums. The suit alleged that the developers and engineers failed to disclose structural problems to the condominium buyers. One issue at hand was the maintenance of the building’s façade which has historic status. Repairs to the façade alone are expected to require $2 million. Ronald Williams, the lawyer for the association, noted that the iron canopy at the entrance had begun to break away and fall even before the condominium association came into being. The decision isn’t yet final, as the developer has an opportunity to appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

June 29, 2017 — Ceslie Blass - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
While we avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion, we recently received share-worthy distinctions, which both flatter and humble us. We invite you, our loyal readers, to celebrate in our success, which in great measure is due to you. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm's founding partners, was ranked third overall across all practicing industries in Washington 2017 Super Lawyers and founding partner Paul R. Cressman, Jr. was ranked in the Top 100. The following other firm members were also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding partner Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen (Partner), Brett M. Hill (Partner), and Lawrence Glosser (Partner). In addition, Ryan W. Sternoff (Partner), James R. Lynch (Partner), Tymon Berger (Associate), and Lindsay (Taft) Watkins (Associate) were selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Over half of the firm's lawyers received Super Lawyers distinction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ceslie Blass, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC

Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

November 26, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Stephens & Stephens XII v. Fireman's Fund Ins. (No. A135938, filed November 24, 2014), the plaintiffs obtained property insurance on a warehouse. Within a month, it was discovered to be stripped of all wiring and metal. Fireman's Fund paid for emergency repairs but nothing more, concerned that the damage had occurred outside the policy period. The policy provided for valuation of either "replacement cost," meaning the expenditure required to replace the damaged property with "new property of comparable material and quality," or "actual cash value," defined as the actual, depreciated value of the damaged property. For replacement cost, Fireman’s Fund was not required to pay "until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired ... as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage," and only "[t]he amount [the insured] actually spend[s]...." In the subsequent bad faith lawsuit, the jury awarded the full cost of repair, despite there being no repairs. The appeals court reversed, holding that there was no right to an immediate award for the costs of repairing the damage; however, the court nonetheless held that the insured was entitled to a "conditional judgment," awarding those costs if repairs were actually made. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

July 06, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In 501 East 51st Street etc. v. Kookmin Best Ins. Co., Ltd. (No. B293605, filed 4/2/20, ordered pub. 4/16/20), a California appeals court affirmed summary adjudication and dismissal of a bad faith claim based on the genuine dispute doctrine. 501 East 51st Street Long-Beach-10, LLC (501) was the owner of a 10-unit apartment complex, insured by Kookmin Best. In 2017, an underground water main alongside the building burst which, according to 501, caused the building to move and crack. 501 made a claim and supplied a geotechnical report finding cracks in the foundation walls, cracks in the stucco and significant floor deformation and tilting near the water leak. The engineer’s opinion concluded that that “existing building distress was substantially contributed to by the water main break. The water introduced to the soil medium appears to have triggered differential foundation movement causing the stress features to develop.” Kookmin retained its own engineers to investigate, who returned an opinion that the leak had exacerbated long-term pre-existing settlement which would continue. Under the policy, damage to the building caused by earth movement and settlement were excluded, but water damage resulting from an “accidental discharge” of water was covered. Kookmin then obtained an opinion from coverage counsel, who opined that only damage allocable to the water leak would be covered. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

May 10, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In contract law, there are two doctrines that have similarities but are indeed different. These doctrines are known as novation and modification. There are times you may want to make arguments relative to these doctrines because they are important for your theory of the dispute. Thus, you want to make sure you understand them so you can properly plead and prove the required elements to substantiate the basis of the theories. Understanding the elements will help you understand the evidence you will need to best prove your factual theories. A novation is essentially substituting a new contract for an old contract.

“‘A novation is a mutual agreement between the parties for the discharge of a valid existing obligation by the substitution of a new valid obligation.’” Thompson v. Jared Kane Co., Inc., 872 So.2d 356, 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citation omitted). To prove a novation, a party must prove four elements: “(1) the existence of a previously valid contract; (2) the agreement of the parties to cancel the first contract; (3) the agreement of the parties that the second contract replace the first; and (4) the validity of the second contract.” Id. at 61. Whether the parties consented to the substitute contract can be implied from the factual circumstances. Id.

Parties are more familiar with a modification because it is not uncommon that parties may agree to modify contractual terms. The contract remains in effect but certain terms or obligations are modified. For example, a change order to a contract is a modification. 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