Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Safe Commercial Asbestos-Removal Practices

April 18, 2023 — Emily Newton - Construction Executive
Contractors must proceed with caution to safely remove asbestos and protect employees and commercial buildings. Only contractors licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in abatement should dispose of it, because the best asbestos-removal practices require high degrees of care and safety. Asbestos is a stealthy material, quickly becoming airborne and contaminating other areas of the building and humans. No matter a contractor's tenure in the field, it's vital to remember the top practices in the industry as people learn more about elusive, toxic asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). Wait for Technician and Inspector Feedback It’s important to find out if a jobsite contains asbestos. Proceed with caution if the structure was built before the 1990s. The removal process shouldn't start immediately if a business suspects asbestos and reaches out to a company. Inspectors scope the situation and grab samples for lab testing to determine how abaters should handle the case. They will need to know every potential hiding place for the asbestos, analyzing everything from caulking to wiring for asbestos coatings and other variants of the substance. This may take time, but commercial contractors must wait until they receive this information before proceeding. Reprinted courtesy of Emily Newton, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When a Construction Lender Steps into the Shoes of the Developer, the Door is Open for Claims by the General Contractor

February 18, 2015 — Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law Blog
Thank you to my partner Garret Murai for giving me the opportunity to post again on his excellent California Construction Law Blog. I am the author/editor of the Money and Dirt Blog, where I focus on issues relating to real estate investment, development, and secured lending. On the Money and Dirt Blog, I recently posted an article on an interesting new secured lending opinion from the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District in Riverside), California Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti. That blog post focused on guaranty liability, and the court’s holding that there are limits to the defenses that a guarantor can lawfully waive. But that same decision also highlights valuable lessons regarding the relationship between construction lenders and general contractors in distressed projects, which I’ll cover here. In short, the court held that when a construction lender “steps into the shoes” of the developer to manage a distressed project, the lender might open the door to liability to the general contractor under theories of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Brodehl, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Bordehl may be contacted at kbrodehl@wendel.com

Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
A Delaware trial court found that the carrier properly denied coverage to a contractor who allegedly caused property damage due to faulty workmanship. Westfield Ins. Co., Inc. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Serv., L.L.C., 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 160 (Del. Super. Ct. March 30, 2015). In 2004 and 2005, Miranda built a home pursuant to a contract with Fenwick Ventures, LLC. The homeowners purchased the home from Fenwick in 2006. In 2012, the homeowners contacted Fenwick to complain about defects in the home's construction. In 2014, the homeowners filed a complaint against Fenwick and Miranda. The lawsuit alleged that during the construction of the home, Miranda used inadequate building materials, improperly installed building materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that the home was properly constructed. 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

Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
The lawsuits required to perfect and foreclose upon a lien have confused lien claimants and their attorneys for years. This confusion was recently demonstrated in a recent case entitled Founders Kitchen and Bath, Inc. v. Alexander, No. A15A1262, 2015 WL 6875026 (Ga. App. 2015). In the case, the trial court granted an owner’s motion for summary judgment against a subcontractor that sought to foreclose on its materialman’s lien. In deciding to reverse the trial court’s decision, the Court held that issues of material fact still existed as to whether the owner and subcontractor were in privity of contract. 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

Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

September 03, 2019 — Louise Poirier - Engineering News-Record
Problematic utility locations and difficult ground conditions required the project team to develop innovative solutions on the University of Texas at San Antonio’s $95-million Science and Engineering Building. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

June 15, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Indemnity provisions are one of the most fought over provisions in design and construction contracts. But while parties generally understand the intent behind indemnity provisions — that one party (the “indemnitor”) agrees to indemnify (and often defend as well) another party (the “indemnitee”) from and against claims that may arise on a project — few understand how they are actually applied. In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Oltmans Construction Company v. Bayside Interiors, Inc. (March 30, 2017), Case No. A147313, the California Court of Appeals for the First District examined an indemnity provision and its “except to the extent of” provision whereby a subcontractor agreed to indemnify (and defend) a general contractor from claims arising on a project “except to the extent of” the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct and whether such language either: (1) bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively negligent; or (2) simply bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively and solely negligent, thereby, requiring a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor where the negligence of another party may have also contributed to the injury or damage. 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

New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

August 03, 2020 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

February 27, 2019 — Rick Clough - Bloomberg
General Electric Co. will reimburse the state of Massachusetts for funds used to develop the manufacturer’s future headquarters, a project that is now being scaled back under Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp. GE and the state will jointly sell the property in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood where the company will make its future home, according to an agreement revealed Thursday. GE still plans to move into the campus later this year -- as a tenant rather than owner -- but it’s scrapping plans to build an adjacent 12-story tower. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rick Clough, Bloomberg

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES