Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine

September 29, 2021 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Washington State Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lake Hills Invs., LLC v. Rushforth Constr. Co. No. 99119-7, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Sept. 2, 2021) marks the first time in over 50 years that it has ruled on the Spearin doctrine. The Court’s opinion clarified the contractor’s burden when asserting a Spearin defense and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of contractor AP Rushforth Construction Company (AP). The decision is a major win for Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC attorneys Scott Sleight, Brett Hill, and Nick Korst, who represented AP throughout its long-running dispute with Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH), including the two-month jury trial and the appeal. Leonard Feldman of Peterson | Wampold | Rosato | Feldman | Luna and Stephanie Messplay of Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins also represented AP on appeal. At trial, the owner—Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH)—asserted it was entitled to $3 million in liquidated damages and $12.3 million for defects it alleged were caused by AP’s deficient workmanship. AP denied responsibility for the delays and most of the defects and requested payment of $5 million. Regarding LH’s defect claims, AP argued as an affirmative defense that the defects were caused by deficiencies in the plans and specifications provided by LH. This affirmative defense was rooted in the Spearin doctrine, which states that when the contractor follows plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor is not responsible for defects caused by the plans and specifications. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

July 16, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted summary judgment to the insurer on the insured's claim for bad faith due to denial of the claim. Treigle v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87786 (E.D. La. May 19, 2023). The insured's home sustained serious water damage due to Hurricane in August 2021. Her policy with State Farm excluded losses related to surface water and mold. The insured reported the loss from Hurricane Ida after she returned to her home and found two inches of standing water in the house. State Farm advised the insured to hire a water mitigation company to help with the water. The insured contacted 7 Brothers Company to start mitigation, including tearing out the disposing of wet building materials. 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

Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

May 04, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The short story: Construction can resume. The long story: Construction can resume beginning Monday, May 4, 2020, with extensive and detailed restrictions. Six Bay Area Counties Loosen Shelter-in-Place Restrictions Including Allowing Construction to Resume Earlier this week, six Bay Area counties and the City of Berkeley issued new orders requiring the use of face coverings when in public. The six Bay Area counties, which also happen to be the first counties in the nation to issue shelter-in-place orders, are Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. When do the revised shelter-in-place orders take effect? The revised shelter-in-place orders take effect at 11:59 p.m. on May 3, 2020 and will remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2020 unless extended, rescinded, superseded, or amended. Thus, effectively, the new orders take effect on Monday, May 4, 2020. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List

January 25, 2021 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Eight Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to:

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

October 01, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

December 03, 2024 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
Construction contractors often have to deal with classification of employees, particularly those who work in the home office. Today’s guest post by Alexandra Shulman and Leah Lively addresses a recent court decision affecting the wage protection of employees under the the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On November 15, 2024, a federal court in Texas vacated a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) rule (the “2024 Rule”) that increased the minimum salary threshold for employees classified as exempt from overtime and minimum wage protections under the FLSA. The Texas court’s decision nullifies the 2024 Rule nationwide, effective immediately. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Buchalter
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

July 19, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court decided this regulatory “takings” case, and, in a Per Curium opinion, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that that petitioners had to exhaust their state administrative remedies before they could file this lawsuit under 42 USC Section 1983. The City government had already come to a sufficient regulatory conclusion, and the Constitution does not require additional processing. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit ignored last term’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

December 02, 2015 — William Kennedy – White and Williams LLP
Contracting parties can circumvent the limitations of common law tort doctrines by drafting contracts with language that details the allocation or shifting of the risk of tort loss. Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions can permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of tort exposure – damages and defense fees and costs – if they have the kind of specificity set forth in Part Two of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision." In most business transactions, however, both the Indemnitee and the Indemnitor want the indemnity obligation to be insured. Part Three: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation “Insured Contract Coverage” Although CGL policies do not typically cover an Insured’s breaches of contract, per se, most insurance policies do cover a policyholder’s “incidental contracts” or “insured contracts” under which the policyholder has an obligation to indemnify an Indemnitee. The business contract (as opposed to the insurance policy) should require the Indemnitor to take all steps necessary to have the Indemnitee identified as either a Covered Person, Insured, or Additional Insured on the Indemnitor’s applicable insurance policies. There are subtle, but potentially significant legal rights and responsibilities that hinge on whether an entity is a Covered Person, Insured, Additional Insured, or some other classification. Purported Indemnitees may need to consult insurance coverage counsel to ensure that they are seeking the appropriate status from the Indemnitor’s CGL insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES