CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

November 16, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to announce the firm has been recognized for its fourth consecutive year in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms® and is ranked by Best Lawyers® regionally in three practice areas. To read the publication, please click here. Regional Tier 1 Las Vegas: Litigation – Construction Orange County: Litigation – Construction Regional Tier 2 Orange County: Family Law Regional Tier 3 Orange County: Commercial Litigation Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

California Rejects Judgments By Confession Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1132

May 08, 2023 — Drew M. Jorgenson & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
The Elimination of Judgment by Confession Following in the footsteps of Massachusetts and Florida, California recently updated California Code of Civil Procedure section 1132 which renders judgments by confession unenforceable and inadmissible in any superior court, effective January 1, 2023. The bar is not retroactive, so judgments by confession obtained or entered before January 1, 2023 are still valid. Moving forward, consider the following. What is a Judgment By Confession? A judgment by confession, also known as a confession of judgment or "cognovit" clause, is a mechanism by which a debtor agrees that a creditor may summarily obtain a legal judgment against that debtor and enforce it in the event of the debtor's breach of contract or default. In other words, it is a private admission by a debtor that they are liable for a debt without the need for a trial, and consequently, agree to forfeit very important rights. Most importantly, parties agreeing to such clauses are waiving rights such as the right to notice of the judgment and the right to assert defenses against the creditor or third party's claims. Historically, without any judicial involvement, these types of out-of-court judgments would be enforceable. Reprinted courtesy of Drew M. Jorgenson, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Jorgenson may be contacted at drew.jorgenson@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

June 15, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
I am back. It feels like an entirety since I last posted. But a hellacious trial schedule got me off the blogosphere for some time. Plus, there was nothing to write about. But I am back with a bang thanks to a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning the interplay of a forum selection clause appearing in an arbitration clause in a construction contract and the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. In Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. v. Hospitality Builders, Inc., the federal court (Judge Joyner) ruled that the federal arbitration act preempted the Payment Act’s prohibition on forum selection clauses and held that an arbitration must proceed in South Dakota even though the construction project were the work was performed was located in Pennsylvania. The Payment Act applies to all commercial construction projects performed in Pennsylvania. As some you might know, Section 514 of the Payment Act, 73 P.S. 514, prohibits choice of law and forum selection clauses. It states “[m]aking a contract subject to the laws of another state or requiring that any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process on the contract occur in another state, shall be unenforceable.” Therefore, if a construction contract is for a project located in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law must apply and all disputes must be adjudicated in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Texas Supreme Court has concluded in Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. that “the costs incurred by a builder to locate and repair damage caused by the builder’s defective product are covered under its general liability insurance policy.” Hunton & Williams have issued a Client Alert discussing the case. For the background of the case, Lennar built about 800 homes using EIFS. The EIFS trapped water and the homes suffered from rot, structural damage, mold, mildew, and termites. Lennar fixed all the homes so built, avoiding litigation. Lennar “notifed its insurers of the defects and invited its insurers to participate in the proactive remediation program.” A lower court had agreed with Markel, one of Lennar’s insurers, that the losses were not “caused by property damage,” and that Lennar should not have made “voluntary payments without Markel’s consent.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejecting Markel’s argument and affirming the jury’s finding. According to Hunton & Williams, the implications of the Texas Lennar decision is that it “confirms that all insurers with policy in effect at the time of property damage are responsible for all sums for which the policyholder is liable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Permission for CityCenter to demolish Harmon Tower over claims of dangerous construction defects have been withdrawn by the judge in the case after the building’s insurer said it needed more time to investigate. After they were granted permission to demolish the building on August 23, CityCenter filed a claim of total loss with their insurer FM Global on August 27. Now FM Global is saying that they need to further inspect the building. Meanwhile, a demolition contractor has already gained approval to start removing the exterior glass. And things stand, it looks as if that won’t be happening on the planned date of December 2. CityCenter contends that FM Global has already done their inspections, describing FM Global’s prior actions as “the most extensive investigation of anyone,” according to Mark Ferrario, an attorney for CityCenter. Also, the initial plan to implode the building has been rejected. Should demolition proceed, the building will be dismantled floor by floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

June 22, 2016 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
We have previously reported on the Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes case, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a provision in an association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which required declarant consent before an arbitration provision could be amended out of the document. To read the past articles on the case, please review Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals' Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases and The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals. Today, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the association's petition for writ of certiorari, en banc, on the following reframed issues:

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding as a matter of first impression that Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) permits a developer-declarant to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend common interest community declarations.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McClain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

May 24, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

“Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

Read the court’s decision

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

---

Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer

February 19, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Let’s talk about a statutory first-party bad faith claim against an insurer under Florida law. A recent opinion, discussed below, does a nice job providing a synopsis of a first-party statutory bad faith claim against an insurer: The Florida Legislature created the first-party bad faith cause of action by enacting section 624.155, Florida Statutes, which imposes a duty on insurers to settle their policyholders’ claims in good faith. The statutory obligation on the insurer is to timely evaluate and pay benefits owed under the insurance policy. The damages recoverable by the insured in a bad faith action are those amounts that are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the insurer’s bad faith in resolving a claim, which include consequential damages. “[A] statutory bad faith claim under section 624.155 is ripe for litigation when there has been (1) a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) a determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required [civil remedy] notice is filed pursuant to section 624.155(3)(a).” 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

---