Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the Daily Journal of Commerce, Scott A. Smith and James H. Wendell discussed the recent Washington Supreme Court decision in Donatelli v D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers. The court’s ruling casts “doubt on a company's ability to limit its liability for economic losses arising out of a contract dispute.” The Donatellis hired D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers to develop vacant land in King County, however, the “project did not go according to plan and the real estate market collapsed before the project was completed,” according to the Daily Journal of Commerce. The “Donatellis lost their property through foreclosure” and then “sued the engineering firm for more than $1.5 million in lost profits.” D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers asked for the negligence claims to be dismissed “because the parties' contract contained a provision limiting the engineering firm's liability to the amount of its fee for ‘any injury or loss on account of any error, omission, or other professional negligence.’” However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that “the case could proceed in the trial court on a theory that the engineers could be liable if they made negligent misrepresentations that induced the Donatellis to enter into the contract in the first place.” Smith and Wendell stated that because of “this decision, engineering, architectural, construction, and other professional service companies may now face damage claims they thought they were contractually protected against.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?

February 23, 2017 — Yas Omidi - California Construction Law Blog
Are you a general contractor who is pretty sure that you have additional insured coverage for some stuff under your sub-subcontractor’s excess policy? Advent, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. H041934 (December 6, 2016) warns you to be a little more specific. Johnson Western Gunite was the shotcrete sub-subcontractor on a job. One of its employees—specifically, Jerry Kielty—tumbled down a stairwell, sustaining severe bodily injury thereby. Kielty filed suit against the general contractor in charge of the job—Advent, Inc.—amongst others. Kielty did not name his employer Johnson in the suit. In terms of insurance: Advent was insured under a primary insurance policy issued by Landmark American Insurance Company and an excess policy issued by Topa Insurance Company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yas Omidi, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Ms. Omidi may be contacted at yomidi@wendel.com

Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

September 07, 2017 — Sanjo S. Shatley - Florida Construction Law News
Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of retroactive application of a construction subcontract on the basis of a merger clause in Don Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.[1] In the case, in late 2010, Don Facciobene, Inc. (“DFI”), a licensed general contractor, contracted with Digiacinto Holdings, LLC, an owner of a home built in 1905 in Melbourne, Florida, known as the Nannie Lee House or the Strawberry Mansion, to perform various renovations in preparation for a restaurant to be opened on the premises. One of the renovations included a new roof. DFI subcontracted the roofing work to Hough Roofing, Inc. (“HRI”), a licensed roofing subcontractor. In mid-March 2011, HRI submitted an estimate and proposed statement of work to DFI. DFI’s project manager signed HRI’s proposal on April 5, 2011, as well as an additional expanded proposal six days later. According to the proposals, payment was due on completion. HRI began work on the roof on April 15, 2011, without a signed subcontract. However, DFI and HRI ultimately executed a subcontract on June 8, 2011, even though HRI had mostly finished its work by the end of May. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo S. Shatley, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake

October 15, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A group of scientists have made a list of about 1,500 concrete buildings in Los Angeles which could potentially collapse in an earthquake. They have offered to make the list available to Los Angeles officials, although the city has yet to take them up on the offer. In response, a group of Times reporters combed through records to identify which buildings were of the sort most likely to collapse in an earthquake. The group found more than 1,000 concrete buildings built before 1976 when Los Angeles increased the requirements for steel rebar. Experts estimate that in a major earthquake, five percent of these buildings could collapse, which for Los Angeles would mean about 50 buildings. Many of these buildings could be seismically retrofitted, but the article notes that a retrofit starts with a $100,000 structural study. Carol Schatz of the Central City Association notes that the cost of retrofitting “would be greater than the value of the building.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

August 03, 2020 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

When is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

May 07, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often discussed mediation as a good alternative to the expense and headaches of litigation. What I have discussed less often are the circumstances in which it is most appropriate to consider or even push for mediation. The obvious and clearest time that mediation must be used is where the contract requires it. Many construction contracts, including those from the AIA (when the parties check the appropriate box) require mediation as a prerequisite to arbitration or litigation. As is almost always the case in Virginia, this clause will be enforced. In short, if your construction contract has such a clause, and despite my reservations about “mandatory mediation,” you need to at least go through the process before moving forward with your construction claim. The more interesting case is where no such clause exists and the parties reach an impasse, sometimes prior to litigation and often after the filing of a construction complaint or demand for arbitration. What questions should you as a construction attorney be asking both to and about your construction clients before attempting mediation? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Legal Battle Kicks Off to Minimize Baltimore Bridge Liabilities

May 06, 2024 — Brendan Murray - Bloomberg
The owner of the ship that destroyed Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, causing the indefinite closure of the port a week ago, is seeking to limit its liability to about $44 million. According to reporting by my Bloomberg News colleagues citing legal experts, the company — Grace Ocean — could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims. On Monday it filed a petition jointly with Synergy Marine, which was operating the Singapore-flagged container ship Dali. They claim the collapse of the bridge was “not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care” of the companies and that they shouldn’t be held liable for any loss or damage from the disaster. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan Murray, Bloomberg

Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

August 31, 2020 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Maine’s Supreme Court cleared the way for construction to begin on the nearly $1-billion, 145-mile high voltage transmission line that will feed hydroelectric power from Quebec into the New England power grid. Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES