CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

May 20, 2024 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Washington, DC-based partner Michael Levine has been recognized for his extensive experience and insights into emerging and legacy property and business interruption insurance coverage issues by being selected to Law360’s 2024 Editorial Advisory Board for Insurance Authority Property. As a member of the board, Mike will provide feedback on Law360’s coverage of property issues and expert insight on how best to shape future reporting of issues affecting businesses across all industry sectors. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth llp Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”

May 06, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The Metropolitan Municipality of Lima, Peru, filed suit in federal court in Washington DC to vacate two separate arbitration awards rendered against the city in international arbitration proceedings subject to the Federal Arbitration Act. The city had contracted to build, improve, and maintain various highways in and around the city. To pay for this infrastructure, Lima agreed that the contractor would “receive revenues from existing and new toll booths.” Apparently, the City of Lima forgot how much citizens of the area loathed tolls, and, according to the court, the local public officials “quickly truckled” (how apropos for a road project!) to the pressure. As a result, revenues promised to the contractor were not forthcoming, and the city did nothing about it. The contractor initiated arbitration, and the city countered by arguing that the contractor had bribed its way into the contract. The city lost and was held in breach. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

December 11, 2018 — Timothy Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Earlier this month, in Frederick Mutual Insurance Company v. Hall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that coverage for faulty workmanship claims is “simply not the kind of coverage insurance agents and insurance companies expect to provide” to construction industry professionals “unless the insured explicitly requests such coverage.” 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018). In Hall, a stone masonry contractor was sued by its customer for causing over $350,000 in property damage resulting from “substandard and defective work” performed on the customer’s residence. The insurer sought a declaration that it owed neither a defense nor indemnity for those damages because, under Pennsylvania law, the policy did not cover property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com

---

San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to San Jose Mercury News, a 250 million dollar apartment complex being built in San Francisco, California received “catastrophic damage” from a fire on March 11th. The complex was being developed by BRE Properties, Inc., and “was slated to open sometime later this year.” Initial reports blamed high winds for the start of the blaze, however, San Jose Mercury news reported that “downtown San Francisco experienced wind speeds of no more than 10 mph Tuesday, and that heavy winds were not expected Tuesday night” according to the National Weather Service. “Representatives for [BRE Properties, Inc.] were not available for comment,” as reported by San Jose Mercury News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

April 20, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.



After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”



“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”



Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:



[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.



[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.



[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.



[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.



[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.



[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.



In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”



The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”



The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.



The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”



James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:



“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.



In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”



The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.



Read the full story...

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

---

Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A judge in Colorado has ruled that although the homeowner’s policy excluded construction defects from coverage, lost rental income and the cost of deck repair involved in fixing a defective drainage system were. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

March 20, 2023 — Associated Press - Engineering News-Record
WATSONVILLE, Calif. (AP) — A Northern California agricultural community famous for its strawberry crop was forced to evacuate early Saturday after the Pajaro River’s levee was breached by flooding from a new atmospheric river that pummeled the state. Across the Central Coast's Monterey County , more than 8,500 people were under evacuation orders and warnings Saturday, including roughly 1,700 residents — many of them Latino farmworkers — from the unincorporated community of Pajaro. Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

May 13, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---