CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida trigger

May 18, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Johnson-Graham-Malone, Inc. v. Austwood Enterprises, Inc., No. 16-2009-CA-005750-XXXX-MA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Duval County, April 29, 2011), insured JGM was the general contractor for an apartment project completed in 1998. In 2007, the project owner sued JGM seeking damages for defective construction resulting in moisture penetration property damage. JGM tendered its defense to Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense. JGM defended and settled the underlying suit and then filed suit against Amerisure seeking recovery of defense and settlement costs. The trial court granted JGM’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court first addressed Amerisure’s duty to defend. Applying Florida law, the court held that, although the underlying complaint alleged that the property damage was not discovered until after expiration of the Amerisure policies



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.” In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.” While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

February 06, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Marilyn Grabowski leads Atlantic Infrared with a mission to protect and improve infrastructure. In this interview, we discuss her professional background, the technologies that her team uses, and why more women should consider construction as a career. Marilyn Grabowski, known as “The Lady in Red”, and her team Atlantic Infra employees dubbed “The Red Crew” have been seamlessly filling potholes across the state of New Jersey since 2002. Under her leadership, The Red Crew uses infrared technology and unfailing attention to detail to expertly repair potholes, failed utility cuts and sunken trenches with no break in the road – creating safe and aesthetically pleasing repairs statewide, at a clip of 15,000 potholes per year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

January 06, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The Eighth Circuit determined a jury instruction regarding the applicability of the "all-risk" policy’s exclusion for "collapse" was inadequate. See KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22158 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2011).

KAAPA had nine large, cylindrical, stainless steel tanks fabricated at its location. Soon after operations began in 2003, some of the tanks experienced unusual movement and began to shift. A geotechnical engineer found "silty clay" had been used for infill instead of compacted granular fill called for in engineering drawings. A year long plan to repair all nine tanks was implemented.

Affiliated’s "all-risk" policy excluded damage caused by faulty workmanship. It also excluded damage caused by settling or cracking. The settling exclusion went on to provide, "This exclusion will not apply to loss or damage resulting from collapse of: a building or structure; or material part of a building or structure." Affiliated denied coverage because of the faulty workmanship and settling exclusions.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

November 04, 2019 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
Hyundai Construction Equipment Americas Inc. and its parent company are paying a $47-million civil penalty to settle federal allegations that the company sold construction vehicles that weren't certified to meet the appropriate Clean Air Act emissions standards, federal agencies say. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

March 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Consider who you loan money too and, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which your loan agreements (promissory notes) are drafted. By way of example, in what appears to be a failed construction project in Conrad FLB Management, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2897a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a group of lenders lent money to a limited liability company (“Company”) in connection with the development of a project. Promissory notes were executed by Company and executed by its managing member as a representative of Company, and not in a personal capacity. Company, however, did not own the project. Rather, an affiliated entity owned the project (“Affiliated Entity”). Affiliated Entity had the same managing member as Company. Once the Company received the loan proceeds, it transferred the money to Affiliated Entity, presumably for purposes of the project. The loans were not repaid and the lenders sued Company, Affiliated Entity, and its managing member, in a personal capacity. The lenders claimed they were all jointly liable under the promissory notes. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, this was reversed on appeal as to the Affiliated Entity and the managing member because there was a factual issue as to whether they should be bound by the note executed on behalf of Company. First, Florida Statute s. 673.4011(1) provides that “a person is not liable on a promissory note unless either (a) the person signed the note, or (b) the person is represented by an agent who signed the note.” Conrad FLB Management, LLC, supra. Affiliated Entity is a separate entity and did not execute the note. 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

---

Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

March 22, 2018 — Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.
Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

• What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?

• The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.

Relevant Sections:

• A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201

• 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2

AIA:

• Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.

• Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

December 17, 2024 — Jamison Rayfield & Brian Slome - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego/San Francisco, Calif. - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a geotechnical engineering firm that had conducted a brief inspection of a residential construction project's footing trench for $360. The case arose when homeowner Cheryl Lynch experienced significant property damage after her home's foundation failed and the structure began subsiding into a slope. Lynch sued Peter & Associates for professional negligence and nuisance, despite having no direct contractual relationship with the firm, which had been hired by her contractor to perform the geotechnical inspection. The court distinguished this case from Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, which had limited auditors' professional duty to third parties, noting that Bily dealt with purely economic damages, whereas Lynch involved physical property damage, making Bily's policy concerns about unlimited liability inapplicable. The court emphasized that construction professional negligence cases, particularly those involving residential property damage, warrant a different analysis than cases involving economic loss. Reprinted courtesy of Jamison Rayfield, Lewis Brisbois and Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rayfield may be contacted at Jamison.Rayfield@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---