Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

January 29, 2024 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court. In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” 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

Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lennar Homes addressed a problem with EIFS in homes built in Texas in the 1990s by replacing every roof they had built. Some of those homes had problems with leaks, rotting, or termites, but other roofs hadn’t suffered any problems. Lennar’s insurers initially refused coverage. Lennar managed to settle with all but one, Markel American Insurance. Their dispute formed the case Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Insurance Co. This was first tried before a jury and eventually appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Brian S. Martin of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP discusses this case at Insurance Journal. Markel’s claim was that under the policy language, Lennar could not make voluntary payments without getting Markel’s consent, which they did not. But the Texas Supreme Court disagreed, determining that Lennar took, as Mr. Martin notes, “a reasonable approach to a serious problem.” Markel also made the claim that the whole amount of the damages was not covered by the policy, as they did not view the policy as covering the cost of determining the extent of the damage. The Court disagreed, noting that “under no reasonable construction of the phrase can the cost of finding EIFS property damage in order to repair it not to be considered ‘because of the damage.’” Mr. Martin concludes by calling the Texas Supreme Court decision “a frontal assault on several critical provisions of liability policies that will assuredly lead to further litigation.” He also notes that the decision “may indicate a shift in the Court’s approach in insurance cases to a more result-oriented jurisprudence.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Scope of Alaska’s Dump Lien Statute Substantially Reduced For Natural Gas Contractors

March 16, 2020 — Trevor Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In All American Oilfield, LLC v. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska clarified and substantially reduced a natural gas contractor’s ability to secure a preferred lien for its contribution to a natural gas well. Alaska’s dump lien statute (AS § 34.35.140) authorizes a laborer to claim a lien for the amount owed for their labor in the production of a “dump or mass” of “extracted, hoisted and raised” matter from a mine. While Alaska’s dump lien statute is one of three Alaskan statutes allowing laborers to attach liens to mines, mining equipment or minerals,[2] the dump lien statute is unique because it is prior and preferred over other liens, increasing the laborer’s chance of being paid in a bankruptcy proceeding. Attaching a lien to a “dump or mass” of hard-rock minerals piled outside a mine or oil stored in a tank is relatively straightforward. However, natural gas is typically left in its natural reservoir until removed by a pipeline that carries the gas to a location far from the mine. Natural gas is not extracted and stored in a “dump or mass” like other minerals, and until August 2019, controversy existed over how—or if—the dump lien statute could be used by natural gas contractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Trevor Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at trevor.lane@acslawyers.com

New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability

May 10, 2022 — Rafael Vergara & Jhonattan N. Gonzalez - White and Williams
On April 26, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals described that in toxic tort cases a plaintiff can only establish liability-creating causation for an adverse health effect with “expert testimony based on generally accepted methodologies.” See Francis Nemeth v. Brenntag North America (N.Y. Apr. 26, 2022). The suit involved alleged asbestos exposure from talc. The plaintiff alleged liability for talc contaminated with asbestos that was ultimately used in a commercial talcum powder, Desert Flower, which the decedent applied daily from 1960 to 1971. At trial, the plaintiff proffered two expert witnesses, a geologist, Sean Fitzgerald, who testified about the “glove box test” and a doctor of internal medicine, Dr. Jacqueline Moline. Fitzgerald’s glove box test consisted of agitating a sample of Desert Flower in a Plexiglas chamber. Fitzgerald concluded that the asbestos fibers in the sample of Desert Flower were “significantly releasable” and that the decedent was exposed to thousands to trillions of fibers through repeated use. Dr. Moline concluded Desert Flower was “a substantial contributing factor” to the decedent’s peritoneal mesothelioma. The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor. Reprinted courtesy of Rafael Vergara, White and Williams and Jhonattan N. Gonzalez, White and Williams Mr. Vergara may be contacted at vergarar@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at gonzalezj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower

June 26, 2023 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
After overcoming several snags, the team for the voluntary effort to stem future significant settlement and tilting at San Francisco’s 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower has declared the project a success, now that loads have been fully transferred to 18 new perimeter piles driven to bedrock. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

July 18, 2022 — John A. Rine & Shannon Murphy - Lewis Brisbois
Tampa, Fla. (June 16, 2022) - Verdicts in personal injury cases are greatly impacted by the amount of medical expenses a plaintiff can present to juries. In Florida, collateral sources of compensation, such as insurance payments, are generally not disclosed to juries. However, caselaw also typically does not allow plaintiffs to recover the gross amount of medical bills, but instead the amount after insurance adjustments. For decades, Florida courts have considered whether the bills are reduced by the adjustments before or after verdict. The recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Association, Inc., No. SC21-43 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022), has standardized the way past medical expenses are presented to juries where the plaintiff was treated under Medicare. As is commonly understood, the original amount billed by medical providers is far different than the amount actually paid. Most treatment is subject to some private or government insurance and those insurers typically have negotiated rates for treatment. Thus, the bills are reduced subject to insurance contractual adjustments and the resulting net bills are far lower. For decades, defense attorneys have argued that juries should hear only the lower net amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Rine, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Rine may be contacted at John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES