Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

April 03, 2019 — Graham C. Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion
A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com

The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

January 15, 2014 — Brady Iandiorio - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
In a recent case of first impression, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the economic loss rule does not bar a nondisclosure tort claim against a seller of a home, built on expansive soils which caused damage to the house after the sale. The case of In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis represents a new decision regarding the economic loss rule. Because it is a case of first impression, we must wait to see whether the Colorado Supreme Court grants a petition for certiorari. Until then, we will analyze the decision handed down on November 7, 2013. The sellers of the home sold it to an entity they controlled for the purpose of repairing and reselling the home. Before that purchase, Sellers obtained engineering reports including discussion of structural problems resulting from expansive soils. A structural repair entity, also controlled by Sellers, oversaw the needed repair work. After the repair work was completed, Sellers obtained title to the residence and listed it for sale. Sellers had no direct contact with Gattis, who purchased the residence from Sellers. The purchase was executed through a standard-form real estate contract, approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission: Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, to which no changes were made. Several years after taking title to the residence, Gattis commenced action, pleading several tort claims alleging only economic losses based on damage to the residence resulting from expansive soils. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Iandiorio may be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

December 18, 2022 — Amelia Pollard & Diego Lasarte - Bloomberg
A room in an eight-bedroom Bed-Stuy brownstone with “charming views.” A five-bedroom “modern Manhattan” home. In a housing market as hot as New York City’s, these units advertised on co-housing companies’ websites sound promising. According to the city’s housing regulations, however, neither is legal. That hasn’t stopped companies from offering the rooms, as renters clamor for affordable living space. With the average studio apartment in Manhattan going for nearly $3,100 a month, newcomers to the city often find living with multiple roommates to be their best affordable-housing option. It’s a trend that startups have jumped on, and one some experts endorse as a way to quickly scale up affordable housing — even though municipal housing laws aren’t on board yet. The reality is that in many cities, housing laws that limit the number of unrelated individuals in a dwelling are still in place. New York, for instance, doesn’t allow more than three unrelated people to live in the same unit. To be sure, New Yorkers often break that law, as expensive housing forces people to find roommates through friends or on sites like Craigslist. But multimillion-dollar companies breaking that law is new. Reprinted courtesy of Amelia Pollard, Bloomberg and Diego Lasarte, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Costs Up

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The cost of putting a building up just got a little higher. The General Contractors of America have tracked an 0.7 percent increase in the cost of building materials between December and January, leading to a 1.3 percent increase through 2012. Ken Simonson, the organization’s chief economist, said that “contractors had to contend with huge leaps in prices for gypsum, wallboard and lumber, as well as significant increases in the cost of insulation and architectural coatings such as paint.” And it isn’t just building materials. Simonson notes that diesel prices are up too, which increases the costs of moving heavy machinery across the site, among other considerations. Don’t expect things to change. “It is clear that costs are rising significantly higher in February,” said Simonson. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

March 30, 2016 — Eric J. Rollins, Esq. – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
It is common in California for the owners of a project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work as it is completed, but withhold a certain percentage as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. Contractors almost always pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors. Unsurprisingly, disputes can arise regarding when the withheld retentions must be paid. Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after receiving all or part of a retention payment. However, an exception exists -- a direct contractor may withhold from the retention paid to a subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount, whenever a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c).) The problem with the statute is that it offers no help in defining a “good faith dispute,” and the California courts have historically not provided much guidance either. Can a “good faith dispute” be any dispute between the contracting parties, e.g., a dispute regarding change orders, mismanagement, etc.? Or must the dispute relate specifically to the retention? Unfortunately for California litigants, the answer may depend on the appellate district in which the parties find themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric J. Rollins, Esq., Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Rollins may be contacted at eric.rollins@ndlf.com

Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

March 29, 2017 — Jesse Howard Witt - The Witt Law Firm
The Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose. A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window). In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Lexology, Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP analyzed recent decisions involving California’s Right to Repair Act, SB 800. According to Alexander, “SB 800, applies to all new residential construction sold after January 1, 2003” and “[i]t establishes a process to resolve certain construction defect claims prior to the filing of any lawsuit by a homeowner of new residential construction.” Alexander’s three main discussion points include “SB 800 is Not the Exclusive Remedy,” “Notice Requirements to Builder Under SB 800,” and “Parties Can Opt Out of SB 800 to Adopt Their Own Prelitigation Procedure So Long as the Terms Are Not Unconscionable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In recent years, more courts have started to view construction defects as accidents, covered under insurance policies. In a post on the Parr Brown Gee & Loveless web site, Jeffrey D. Stevens writes that “the number of courts siding with insurance companies to deny contractors and subcontractors insurance coverage in construction defect lawsuits has been shrinking.” Recently, the Supreme Court of West Virginia “switched sides on this issue completely.” The Utah Supreme Court has not made a ruling on this, but the Federal District Court for the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit have looked at Utah law and concluded that “under Utah law damage caused by construction defects is not accidental.” But in another case, “the district court determined that property damage allegedly caused by defective or defectively installed windows was caused by an accident.” Mr. Stevens thinks that “it is likely” that the Utah Supreme Court “will follow the increasing number of courts that have held that damage caused by construction defects is an accident for insurance purposes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES