Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

July 09, 2019 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
The roof covering the under-construction Seattle Center Arena will remain. And it won’t move, even as contractors remake the entire arena beneath it. OVG-Seattle has started the task of remaking the city-owned structure—and the only major arena within a park in North America—into the home for the expansion NHL Seattle franchise and the start of the 2021 NHL season. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, ENR
Mr. Newcomb may be contacted at

Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

March 04, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As Morrissey of the Smith’s sang: Coyness is nice, but Coyness can stop you, from saying all the things in life you’d like to. It’s not uncommon in litigation to see a complaint asking for “damages according to proof.” Call it laziness. Call it hiding the ball. Call it coy, even. I call it risky. And here’s why: If a defendant doesn’t appear and you need to seek a default judgment against him, her, or it, you are barred from doing so, since you are limited to recovering the amount you sought. And last I checked, something of nothing is nothing. In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. G054522 (December 11, 2018), one plaintiff found this out the hard way, although perhaps not quite in the way they expected it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

March 02, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
One insurer, who accepted the tender of defense in a construction defect case, successfully moved for summary judgment against the second insurer, who denied the insured's tender. Interstate Fire & Cas. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5800 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25,2019). Standard Waterproofing Corporation was hired by the construction manager, G Builders, to perform waterproofing work as part of condominium conversion project. After the project was completed,the condominium occupants experienced water damage in their units. The Condominium Board retained an engineer who reported numerous issues of water infiltration relating to Standard's work. The Condominium Board filed suit against the construction manager, who filed a third party complaint against Standard. Standard tendered to four different insurers, including plaintiff Interstate and defendant Aspen. Interstate agreed to defend, while Aspen and the other two insurers declined. Aspen argued there were no allegations of an occurrence resulting in property damage during its policy periods. Interstate filed for declaratory relief against Aspen and Standard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Nathan B. Hinch writes on his blog about construction defect law in Illinois. Mr. Hinch notes that he has been providing continuing legal education presentations about commercial general liability insurance and coverage of defective construction. In Illinois, for coverage to exist, “there must be ‘an occurrence’ that results in ‘property damage.’” The Illinois courts have determined that “defective work is not an ‘accident,’ reasoning that the contractor intended to do the work, whether it turned out to be defective or not,” however the court “found that there was an ‘accident’ and therefore an ‘occurrence’ in a case where a contractor allegedly caused property damage by negligently backfilling around a residential basement.” And ‘property damage’ must be “damage to property other than the work.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Norfolk Southern Accused of Trying to Destroy Evidence of Ohio Wreck

February 27, 2023 — Jef Feeley - Bloomberg
Norfolk Southern Corp.’s plan to remove wrecked rail cars from a derailment that resulted in potentially poisonous gas being released over an Ohio town will destroy evidence of the company’s liability, lawyers for residents say. Lawyers in proposed class-action lawsuits over the Feb. 3 accident on Friday asked a federal judge to block the company from clearing the wreckage in East Palestine, Ohio. According to the lawyers, Norfolk Southern informed them last week that it planned to move the 11 rail cars by March 1 and would make them available for inspection for only two days. Adam Gomez, a lawyer for East Palestine residents, said in a court filing that it was “common sense” to keep the wreckage where it is for now. “These communities have questions and we need the evidence to answer them,” he said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jef Feeley, Bloomberg

The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

April 06, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about why the date of “completion” on a California construction project is important, and why, if I may be blunt, determining that date can be as frustrating as a one-legged man in a game of kickass. You see, in California the deadline to record a mechanics lien, serve a stop payment notice, or make a payment bond claim – important construction payment remedies the California State Legislature saw fit to help you get paid – often depends on when a project is “completed.” So, for example, the deadline for direct contractors to record a mechanics lien is 90 days from completion of the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

June 21, 2021 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.” 5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

February 11, 2019 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2019 WL 134614 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had occasion to consider the application of a prior knowledge provision in the context of a claim for mold and water-related bodily injury and property damage. Philadelphia insured a condominium property management company under a general liability insurance policy for the period September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008. In 2009, the insured was sued by a unit owner alleging bodily injury and property damage resulting from toxic mold conditions resulting from leaks that had been identified in her unit as early as 2004. Notably, the complaint alleged that mold was identified in 2006 and that repair efforts were undertaken, but that these efforts all proved unsuccessful. Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to vacate her apartment in 2008 as a result of the conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES