CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

September 20, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
We now know and can appreciate the threat of hurricanes. Not that we did not appreciate the reality of hurricanes–of course we did–but Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma created the type of actual devastation we fear because they hit close to home. The fear came to life, creating panic, anxiety, and uncertainty. It is hard to plan for a force majeure event such as a hurricane because of the capriciousness of Mother Nature. But, we need to do so from this point forward. No exception! And, I mean no exception!! A force majeure event is an uncontrollable event that cannot be anticipated with any degree of definitiveness. The force majeure event will excusably delay or hinder performance obligations under a contract. One type of force majeure event is a hurricane—an uncontrollable and unforeseen act of Mother Nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

December 20, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In earlier postings, I discussed the issue of whether Florida Statutes Chapter 558′s pre-suit construction defects process triggers a CGL insurer’s duty to defend. The issue was whether Florida’s 558 pre-suit notice of a construction defect and repair process met the definition of “suit” within a standard CGL policy. A standard CGL policy defines the term “suit” as: “Suit” means a civil proceeding in which damages because of “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance applies are alleged. “Suit” includes: a. An arbitration proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured must submit or does submit with our consent; or b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

January 06, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
After a four-day trial, an Arizona federal jury found that Western Truck Insurance Services, Inc., an insurance broker, was negligent in selling Madison Alley Transportation and Logistics Inc. a business interruption policy with inadequate annual limits. Based on its finding of negligence, the jury determined that the broker was liable for $685,000 of $1,000,000 in damages suffered by Madison Alley as a result of a flood in its warehouse. The verdict and Complaint, filed in Arizona state court before the case was removed, can be found here and here. In June 2016, a subtenant in Madison Alley’s warehouse broke a sprinkler line while operating a forklift, causing the warehouse to flood. The warehouse was used to store and deliver retail display goods, and Madison Alley was unable to do business during the five months of repairs. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

November 17, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the duty to defend in long latency disease cases should be prorated between the insurer and insured when the policies cover for only a portion of the time in which the exposure occurred. Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2016 La. LEXIS 1675 (La. Sept. 7, 2016). 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

---

Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

March 19, 2015 — Janice Kew – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- The City of Cape Town filed a civil damages claim against builders Aveng Ltd., Wilson Bayly Holmes-Ovcon Ltd. and Stefanutti Stocks Holdings Ltd. for colluding on a tender for a stadium built for the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup. The claim for at least 428 million rand ($35 million) will be heard in the North Gauteng High Court, Ian Neilson, Cape Town’s executive deputy mayor, said by phone on Monday. The amount claimed is subject to change, he said. Antitrust authorities fined 15 builders, including the trio facing the Cape Town claim, a total of 1.5 billion rand in June 2013 for rigging contracts for projects including the construction of stadiums for the 2010 World Cup hosted by South Africa. Aveng was fined 307 million rand, WBHO 311 million rand and Stefanutti 307 million rand. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Janice Kew, Bloomberg
Ms. Kew may be contacted at jkew4@bloomberg.net

---

All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance

April 27, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a prior post, we predicted that novel coronavirus (COVID-19) risks could implicate D&O and similar management liability coverage arising from so-called “event-driven” litigation, a new kind of securities class action that relies on specific adverse events, rather than fraudulent financial disclosures or accounting issues, as the catalyst for targeting both companies and their directors and officers for the resulting drop in stock price. It appears that ship has sailed, so to speak, as Kevin LaCroix at D&O Diary reported over the weekend that a plaintiff shareholder had filed a securities class action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. alleging that the company employed misleading sales tactics related to the outbreak. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise line made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose in its securities filings sales tactics by the company that purported to provide customers with unproven or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice customers to purchase cruises. Those allegations rely on two news articles reporting on the company sales practices in the wake of COVID-19: a March 11, 2020 Miami New Times article quoting leaked emails in which a cruise employee reportedly asked sales staff to lie to customers about COVID-19 to protect the company’s bookings; and a March 12, 2020 Washington Post article entitled, “Norwegian Cruise Line Managers Urged Salespeople to Spread Falsehoods about Coronavirus.” The lawsuit alleges that the company’s share price was cut nearly in half following these disclosures. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Geoffrey B. Fehling Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

March 29, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---

Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

August 17, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---