Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

December 09, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer denied the insured contractor's claim seeking a defense for faulty workmanship based upon the ongoing operations exclusion. PJR Constr. of N.J. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D. N. J. July 31, 2019). PJR Construction was the general contractor to build a swim club and pavilion building for Cambridge Real Property, LLC. PJR began construction on May 29, 2012, and was to complete the construction by March 1, 2013. The project took much longer than anticipated. PJR was denied access to the site on November 13, 2014. Cambridge contended PJR tolerated shoddy workmanship and breached the terms of the contract documents. Cambridge estimated that the project was between 55% and 74.3% complete. PJR and Cambridge went to arbitration. PJR sought a defense from the insurers. Coverage was denied based upon exclusions j (5) and j (6). Exclusion j (5), which the court referred to as the "Ongoing Operations Exclusion," provided the policy did not apply to,

Property Damage to . . . [t]hat particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the property damage arises out of those operations.

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

Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

March 12, 2015 — Max W. Gavron and Keith M. Rozanski – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The South Carolina Court of Appeals has rejected a claim by Sun City property owners that they were not bound by the arbitration clause in their purchase agreement. Roger and Mary Jo Carlson brought the claim against Del Webb Communities and Pulte Homes. About 140 homeowners are alleging problems in the community. According to the court, the Carlsons will have to go through arbitration with the companies over the alleged stucco defects to their home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Stop Losing Proposal Competitions

December 10, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Matt Handal. Matt (@matthandal) provides proposal writing strategies that actually work at www.howtowritetheproposal.com. He is the author of Proposal Development Secrets, contributing editor of SMPS Marketer, and co-author of the Marketing Handbook for the Design & Construction Professional. His latest experiment is on business letters. It’s frustrating. You’re a great designer or contractor. Clients love you. The problem is you spend hours producing great proposals, but keep losing. Not only that, most of the time you don’t even get short listed. To make matters worse, the clients keep choosing firms you know you’re better than. So they get the contract and you’re left scrambling for work. Even though these firms frustrate you, imagine what it’s like to be them. They’re not the best, or most qualified firm, yet they walk away with the contract. They are not scrambling for work. They’ve got a healthy backlog. Imagine how it must feel to be them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

August 13, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California Private Works project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. The process starts with the recording of a mechanics lien in the office of the County Recorder where the property in question is located. As noted below, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that, the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). A further general description of the rules is as follows: Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Boston Developer Sues Contractor Alleging Delays That Cost Millions

November 01, 2021 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A Miami developer is suing the general contractor it hired to build a 22-story mixed-use tower in Boston’s trendy Seaport District, alleging construction delays cost it $4.9 million in lost revenue. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

September 10, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The contingency fee multiplier: a potential incentive for taking a case on contingency, such as an insurance coverage dispute, where the insured sues his/her/its insurer on a contingency fee basis. In a recent property insurance coverage dispute, Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Agosta, 43 Fla.L.Weekly, D1934b (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the trial court awarded the insured’s counsel a contingency fee multiplier of two times the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees. The insurer appealed. The Third District affirmed the contingency fee multiplier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES