Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

January 17, 2022 — Amy R. Patton, Matthew C. Lewis & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
The newest version of the Cal/OSHA ETS goes into effect today, Jan. 14, 2022, and will expire on April 15, 2022. A redline of the recently expired Cal/OSHA ETS and the newest Cal/OSHA ETS is available HERE. The newest Cal/OSHA ETS, which was drafted prior to Dec. 16, 2021, is already partially out-of-date based on the California Department of Public Heath’s Guidance For the Use of Masks (released Jan. 5, 2022) and the CDPH’s Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (released Jan. 8, 2022); these changes have been addressed in the Cal/OSHA ETS FAQs. With all of these changes occurring (not to mention all of the litigation surrounding the now-stayed federal OSHA ETS), California employers are asking: How do I comply with the current Cal/OSHA ETS and the updated CDPH Guidance? Here are the key points to ensure you are in compliance:

New Shorter Isolation and Quarantine Periods

Day 0: First day of symptoms or the day a positive test specimen was collected. Begin isolation.
Day 1: First full day after symptoms developed or positive test specimen was collected.
Day 5: Recommended day to take COVID-19 test.

Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears, Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

August 30, 2021 — Joseph L. Cohen, W. Mason & Sean Milani-nia - ConsensusDocs
Consider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be? The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild, W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Mr. Mason may be contacted at wmason@foxrothschild.com Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at smilani@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Sacramento, CA — Bert L. Howe and Associates, Inc., is pleased to announce that Mark Van Wonterghem - General Contractor, has joined the firm as Senior Forensic Consultant. Mark will be responsible for leading the firm’s expansion in the newly formed Sacramento headquarters.

His focus will continue to be working with construction practice groups and claims professionals in the Sacramento and Bay Area markets. He will utilize the resources of the Construction Experts Group at Bert L. Howe & Associates in furthering the litigation support needs attendant to the firm’s Northern California clientele.

Mr. Van Wonterghem possesses extensive consulting and testimony experience. Through 32 years of experience in the construction industry he leverages extensive practical experience with multiple trades including concrete foundations, walls and flatwork, structural wood and steel framing, finish carpentry, drywall, lath & plaster/stucco, window & door installations, deck coating systems, metal and membrane flashings and above/below grade waterproofing. This trade experience encompasses both the commercial and residential construction sectors and has been vital in his ability to provide concise explanation of construction industry standards, as well as trade-specific standards of care.

Mr. Van Wonterghem has broad experience with all types of building construction ranging from concrete and steel commercial construction to high-end custom residential construction.

In connection with the Construction Experts Group at BHA, Mr. Van Wonterghem provides construction consulting and litigation support services to a wide variety of recognized construction claims professionals, owners, and publicly traded builders.

The firm’s Sacramento offices are located at the Gateway Oaks III office complex, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 435, Sacramento, CA 95833. Mr. Van Wonterghem can be reached via e mail at mvanwonterghem@berthowe.com or at (800) 783-1822.

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

When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

June 28, 2021 — Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
New York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

August 26, 2024 — Michael S. Levine & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The highest court in Massachusetts recently held that term “Flood” and the associated phrase “surface waters,” as used in two all-risk insurance policies, is ambiguous in the context of water that accumulated on a parapet roof and rooftop courtyard, thereby negating the insurers’ attempt to limit coverage to a sublimited coverage for “Flood.” Background In June 2020, a severe storm caused damage to Norwood Hospital, owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (“MPT”) and leased to Steward Health Care System (“Steward”), the policyholders. The relevant portion of the damage included damage from rain that accumulated on the rooftop courtyard and seeped into the interior of the building causing damage to the building and its contents. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

August 27, 2014 — Alyssa Abkowitz – Bloomberg
Early estimates suggest the economic losses from Sunday’s 6.0-magnitude earthquake in Northern California, the largest quake to hit the Golden State in 25 years, could hit $1 billion. When it comes to rebuilding, much of the cost will come out of people’s own pockets. The percentage of homeowners with earthquake insurance in California and across the U.S. has declined, despite rising estimates of the risk of an earthquake. A survey by the Insurance Information Institute, a nonprofit that’s funded by the insurance industry, found that 7 percent of U.S. homeowners have earthquake insurance, down from 13 percent just two years ago. In the West, ground zero for U.S. quakes, 10 percent of homeowners have coverage, down from 22 percent a year ago; in California, about 12 percent do, according to the California Earthquake Authority. But as fewer people opt for earthquake insurance, the government is upping its assessment of the risk of a sizable shake. Last month, the U.S. Geological Survey updated its seismic hazard maps for the first time since 2008. The update showed an increased earthquake risk for almost half the country. Parts of Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, among others, moved into the top two hazard zones. The San Francisco Bay area, for example, shows a 63 percent chance of one or more major earthquakes before 2036, according to the agency. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alyssa Abkowitz, Bloomberg

Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
As the ‘burbs become more urbanized, the definition of city is changing. Builder Magazine reported that while builders have responded to buyers who wanted an urban lifestyle, “what nearly all of them have learned in the process is that ‘city’ doesn’t mean what it used to. Neither does ‘suburb.’ In fact, nearly every builder that added a post-recession ‘urban’ division has found that home buyers in search of an urban lifestyle aren’t married to living downtown. For many, it seems it’s not ‘the city’ they want at all—it’s the lifestyle.” Leigh Gallagher, assistant managing editor of Fortune and author of The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream is Moving, told Builder, “People don’t necessarily want to live in Manhattan. They want a little bit of Manhattan sprinkled right near them.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

April 05, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

Read the full story...