Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments

April 02, 2024 — Eric Hermanson, Austin Moody & Victoria Ranieri - White and Williams LLP
Weighing in on an issue that has divided courts nationwide, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that an insurer under Massachusetts law has no right to recoup defense costs, or amounts the insurer pays in settlement – even if the insurer reserves rights prior to payment and obtains a ruling, after the fact, that no defense or indemnity was owed. Berkley Natl. Ins. Co. v. Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC, No. 22-1959, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115 (1st Cir. Feb 22, 2024) (“Granite Telecomm"). However, the First Circuit rested its ruling on narrow procedural grounds, which may prolong the controversy rather than resolve it. The insureds in Granite Telecomm owned a company cafeteria. They were sued by a food service worker who suffered a foot infection after being exposed to bacteria during a sewage backup. They sought coverage from their insurer, Berkley. Berkley argued that coverage was barred by a fungus and bacteria exclusion in the policy. The insureds disagreed. They threatened suit under M.G.L. ch. 93A, and demanded that Berkley defend the case. Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams LLP, Austin Moody, White and Williams LLP and Victoria Ranieri, White and Williams LLP Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Ranieri may be contacted atranieriv@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

February 04, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Wondering how to get your residential clients to pony up more money for green design? Check out today’s guest post by Carrie Van Brunt-Wiley and Katherine Wood. They are writers for the Homeowners’ Insurance Blog, which serves as a resource center for insurance consumers and homebuyers across the country. The U.S. Green Building Council’s new LEEDv4 standards present challenges for contractors, engineers, and architects – the restrictions in many cases are more stringent. There is, however an added bonus to remaining on the sustainable-building track: it’s more marketable than you think. That’s because green homes don’t just appeal to buyers with environmental concerns any more. Now smart budgeters seek them out as well. Why? While it’s true that sustainable construction can cost about 2% more than conventional methods, McGraw-Hill’s Smart Market Report says it typically increases a building’s overall value by an average of 7.5% and improves the return on investment by 6.6%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove

May 02, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
One of the most challenging claims to prove is a lost productivity or inefficiency claim. There is an alluring appeal to these claims because there are oftentimes intriguing facts and high damages. But the allure of the presentation of the claim does not compensate for the actual burden of proof in proving the lost productivity or inefficiency claim, which will require an expert. And they really are challenging to prove. Don’t take it from me. A recent Federal Claims Court opinion, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, (Fed.Cl. 2022), that I also discussed in the preceding article, exemplifies this point. To determine lost productivity or inefficiency, the claimant’s expert tried three different methodologies. First, the expert looked at industry standard lost productivity factors such as those promulgated by the Mechanical Contractor’s Association. However, the claimant was not a mechanical contractor and there is a bunch of subjectivity involved when using these factors. The expert decided not to use such industry standard factors correctly noting they provide value when you are looking at a potential impact prospectively, but once you incur actual damages and have real data, it is not an accurate measure. 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

Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

December 08, 2016 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
An opinion piece in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer concerning proposed legislation that would change the way the City of Philadelphia awards public construction projects is causing quite a stir. The article concerns legislation that would allow the City to award public construction contracts based on a “best value” approach rather than the current requirement that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The author worries that by removing the current objective criteria and replacing it with subjective ones, contracts can be steered to politically favored contractors. The author cites the recent no-bid contract awarded to a law firm run by the friend of Mayor Jim Kenney as an example of the chaos would ensue if this bill was passed. Considering that the Bill’s sponsor, Bobby Hennon, is under FBI investigation, and some of the Mayor’s biggest supporters are as well, the author has ever right to be concerned. However, article comes up short in explaining what the Bill says and what best value procurement, if adopted, would mean for public construction work in Philadelphia. First, the Bill that Councilman Hennon is proposing is actually a Bill that would make the best value procurement question a ballot question next November. In other words, the Bill, if passed, would but to a City wide vote the question of whether the City should change it procurement practices to permit the best value approach to be used in addition to the low bid approach that is current used. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

July 13, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Tustin Field Gas & Food v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (No. B268850, filed 7/3/17), a California appeals court ruled that a split in an underground storage tank, caused by the tank sitting on a rock for years, was not a covered “collapse” as a matter of law. Tustin Field owned a gas station in Palm Springs. The installer of the underground storage tanks did not follow the manufacturer’s instructions to bury them in pea gravel or crushed rock. Instead, the installer just dug a hole, placed the tanks into that hole, and then covered them with “native soil” containing rocks, boulders and other debris. The tanks were double-walled, steel with a fiberglass sheath. Sixteen years after installation, testing revealed that the fiberglass sheath on one tank was no longer intact. The tank was excavated and the fiberglass sheath was found to be cracked from the tank sitting on a nine-inch boulder. The insured paid to have the crack repaired and made a claim for the cost of excavating and repairing the tank. 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

Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

May 24, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions. First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A lawsuit that’s created a “four-year legal battle” over alleged construction defects at the Diamond Pointe Condominium Tower in Lake Texoma, Texas may soon be going to trial, according to KTEN News. A lawyer representing the Diamond Pointe condominiums stated that “he has 15 witnesses lined up for a two-week trial.” KTEN News reported that according to court papers, “the Association alleges issues with the elevator, doors not opening properly, cracks, water leaks, and septic containment system leaks over the past decade.” Furthermore, the Association president Dan Baucum said to KTEN, “There were some foundation repairs that we needed to do and there are some problems with the building. It was not built to the specifications, at least that's what we're alleging, and that has allowed some water seepage in certain areas.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

June 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage for the insureds' alleged negligent failure to construct a building. Evanston Ins. Co. v. DCM Contracting, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63977 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2020). Turning Point Church sued DCM Contracting for faulty workmanship on a construction project. Turning Point sent a demand letter to DCM on August 18, 2017 and filed suit in December. Evanston did not receive notice of Turning Point's claims and the lawsuit until May 15, 2018. Evanston filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment. The court first considered the late notice. The policy required notice "as soon as practicable" DCM was also required to provide copies of demands, notices, or legal papers to Evanston. Here, DCM did not give notice to Evanston until nine months after receipt of Turning Point's demand. A phone communication with DCM's agent between August 2017 and May 2018 was insufficient. DCM provided no documents, including the summons and complaint, to the agent. DCM waited five months to forward the underlying lawsuit. This was a breach of the policy. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES