Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

January 02, 2024 — Keith Sparks - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

February 03, 2020 — Tim Scully - Porter Law Group
In California there are few tools which work to protect the employer, and California employers may have just lost another one. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newson signed into law AB 51, which bans the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts. More specifically, AB 51 adds Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code, making it unlawful to require a prospective employee, or current employee, to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or the California Labor Code, starting January 1, 2020. Additionally, an employer is also prohibited from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant or employee who may choose not to sign a voluntary arbitration agreement. Previously, an employer was able to require employees and prospective employees to agree to arbitration to resolve almost any and all disputes between the employee and the employer as a term of their employment. These terms were often the bulk of employers’ written contracts. Employers could have employees waive the right to a jury trial, the right to court costs, and other expenses, provided that the employer paid for the expenses of the alternative dispute resolution. The injured employees right to recover attorney’s fees was always a non-waivable right under the Labor Code. There were only a few actions which could not be arbitrated, the most prominent exception being the right to seek recovery under the Private Attorney’s General Action (PAGA). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Scully, Porter Law Group
Mr. Scully may be contacted at tscully@porterlaw.com

OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

December 20, 2021 — Stephen E. Irving - Construction Executive
COVID-19 created great upheaval throughout the economy and the legal compliance world as well. The pandemic has been a great disruptor and has brought rules, regulations and related agency guidance that have served to overwhelm even the most conscientious and attentive employer. The welcomed arrival of COVID-19 vaccines, and now the perhaps less welcome OSHA vaccine mandate, simply add to an employer’s compliance burden. While OSHA is busy attempting to implement its vaccine/testing mandate, it also has numerous other significant matters in the works of which employers in the construction industry should be aware. These include new rule drafting and several national and regional emphasis programs, which illustrate OSHA’s current priorities. 1. The Vaccine Mandate Pursuant to a directive from President Biden, in October 2021, OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard implementing a mandate for all employers with more than 100 employees. This mandate requires that employees of such employers be vaccinated for COVID-19 or submit to regular testing. OSHA has also expressed interest in issuing a permanent standard and potentially expanding to include smaller employers. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

January 21, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (No. G054522, filed 12/11/18), a California appeals court held that a developer’s failure to allege the amounts of damages sought in its cross-complaint rendered default judgments against a subcontractor void and, therefore, unenforceable against the subcontractor’s insurers in a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). Yu, the owner, hired ATMI to develop a hotel. ATMI subcontracted with Fitch to perform stucco and paint work. Yu sued ATMI for construction defects and the developer cross-complained against its subcontractors, including Fitch, for breach of contract; warranty; indemnity, etc. Yu’s operative complaint prayed for damages “in an amount not less than $10,000,000, according to proof.” ATMI’s cross-complaint stated that it incorporated the allegations of Yu’s complaint “for identification and informational purposes only,” but “does not admit the truth of any allegations contained therein.” The cross-complaint also prayed for damages with respect to the various causes of action “in an amount according to proof.” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

August 10, 2020 — Vincent Alexander - Lewis Brisbois
Fort Lauderdale Partner Vincent F. Alexander has been named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite as both a Legal Leader and an Up & Comer. In receiving this recognition, Mr. Alexander joins the less than 2% of active Florida Bar members who appear on this exclusive list. In addition, as a Legal Elite Up & Comer, Mr. Alexander is among only 112 attorneys who received the most votes in a special category for attorneys under the age of 40 who have exhibited leadership in the law and in their community. Florida Trend’s Legal Elite, now in its 17th year, presents the state’s top licensed and practicing attorneys selected by their peers. In composing its 2020 edition of Legal Elite, Florida Trend invited all in-state Florida Bar members to name attorneys who they hold in high regard or who they would recommend to others. The publication also asked voters to name three up and coming attorneys. Nominated attorneys were then scored based on the number of votes that they received, with more weight assigned to votes from outside of their own firms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vincent Alexander, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Alexander may be contacted at Vincent.Alexander@lewisbrisbois.com

Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

April 09, 2014 — Dakin Campbell – Bloomberg
Citigroup Inc. (C) agreed to pay $1.13 billion to settle claims from mortgage-bond investors as it seeks to curb liabilities tied to the financial crisis. It took a $100 million first-quarter charge. The 68 securitization trusts covered by the settlement issued a combined $59.4 billion in mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2008, the New York-based bank said yesterday in a statement. The agreement covers 18 investors represented by Gibbs & Bruns LLP and trustees have until June 30 to accept the deal, the law firm said in a separate statement. The accord must be approved by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank, is resolving a portion of liabilities tied to mortgages it packaged and sold to investors in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the two largest U.S. lenders, previously agreed to multibillion-dollar settlements with Gibbs & Bruns clients. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dakin Campbell, Bloomberg
Mr. Campbell may be contacted at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net

The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado passed its Construction Action Defect Reform Act twelve years ago, but as Anne K. McMichael of Zupkus & Angell, PC, points out, “while portions of this act are reasonably straightforward, several of the sections are subject to ongoing debate as to how these concepts should be applied to achieve fair and unbiased results.” The process for a construction defect claim under the CDARA starts with filing a notice of defects, after which the construction professional is permitted to inspect the alleged defect. The construction professional can then offer to repair or settle. The law offers protections for construction professionals who follow through with the process. But, as Ms. McMichael notes, these are denied to construction professionals who do not make offers, fail to meet settlement agreements, or offers a settlement that is insufficient for repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

December 14, 2020 — Amanda Albright & Danielle Moran - Bloomberg
America’s country-music capital is making a bet on the world’s most popular sport. A Nashville, Tennessee agency is selling $225 million of bonds to finance the construction of a 30,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium in Music City, anticipating it could be a boon once spectator sports emerge from the pandemic. Local officials have faith that it will: the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County agreed to step in if revenue from the stadium isn’t enough to cover the debt payments, insulating bondholders from risk. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Albright, Bloomberg and Danielle Moran, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES