Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

June 10, 2024 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
In the construction industry, arbitration is a frequently agreed-upon and utilized dispute resolution method. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., provides the underpinning and framework for how courts should handle litigation in connection with arbitration agreements. Where a party asserts that a claim brought in court should be subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA provides that the action should be stayed. However, some courts have entertained a party’s request to dismiss a suit where the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, creating a circuit split in the federal appeals courts. In Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872, issued on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court held that, absent some other defect (such as the lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction), Section 3 of the FAA requires a court which finds a claim is subject to an arbitration must stay the lawsuit during the arbitration proceedings rather than dismissing the action.[1] In so doing, the Court addressed a question that for years it left unanswered. While most Circuits held, prior to Smith, that Section 3 requires a court to stay the litigation pending an arbitral award; the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each held that a court could dismiss an action in lieu of staying. In Smith, both parties acknowledged the underlying claims were arbitrable, but when the district court compelled arbitration, the court dismissed the action rather than staying the court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit (relying on its prior precedent) affirmed, with two judges noting that the Ninth Circuit’s approach was incorrect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

February 18, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:

In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Sioux City Building Owners Sue Architect over Renovation Costs

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
According to the architects, it should have cost a few hundred thousand dollars to strengthen the floors of Sioux City’s Badgerow Building. Instead, the upgrades cost somewhere between $3 and $5 million, which Mako One, the builder’s owners, said would have dissuaded them from starting had they known. Mako is suing M Plus Architects, for this and for its recommendation that the building’s windows be changed. That change ran foul of historic preservation guidelines, and the windows will have to be replaced. M Plus is, in return, suing Mako One over $150,000 in unpaid bills. Meanwhile, a data center is moving in on the fourth floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

September 29, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After suffering business losses due to a hurricane, the insured's Civil Authority claim survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Pathology Lab. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145129 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2021). Hurricane Laura devastated Lake Charles, Louisiana causing severe damage to the insured property as well as other properties within a mile of the insured property. All seven electrical transmission line corridors feeding Lake Charles were catastrophically damaged causing an extensive power outage. Government shutdown Orders prohibited the insureds' access to the Lab. The Orders were issued by the respective civil authorities both in anticipation of and as a result of damage and dangerous physical conditions expected from and actually resulting from Hurricane Laura and the continuation thereof. When the hurricane arrived, all businesses that were not essential to the recovery were ordered closed until electricity, water and sewer services were restored. As a result, the Lab was closed from August 27, 2020 toSeptember 8, 2020. The Lab sued for business income under the policy's Civil Authority provisions. Mt. Hawley moved to dismiss. Mt. Hawley argued that the Orders did not by their explicit terms close the Lab's business because closure was entirely dependent on the conditions of the described premises itself and whether it was safe to occupy. Mt. Hawley further argued that the mandatory Evacuation Order was issued in anticipation of property damage and therefore did not trigger coverage under the Civil Authority provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Knife River Corp was hired by the town of Post Falls, Idaho to do road and sewer construction work. In the process, they interrupted a 6-inch water supply line, sending the water into a wastewater line. From there, the water flooded a home in Post Fall. The city paid more than $7,800 in damages. Post Falls sued Knife River’s insurer for coverage. The city has lost its lawsuit and is responsible for $18,500 in attorneys’ fees. Despite all this, the city administrator says that the city still has a good working relationship with Knife River. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

March 08, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost. The Oetiker Case James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded, in 2004. In 2016, the Philsons tendered a claim to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company, after their home experienced significant water damage due to a defective stainless steel ear clamp. In 2018, after paying the Philson’s claim, State Farm filed a subrogation action against the manufacturer of the ear clamp, Oetiker, Inc. State Farm’s complaint, which included causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, alleged that the home was “damaged by a water leak from the failure of a defective stainless steel ear claim on a water PEX fitting” and that the ear clamp was “defective when it left the control of [Oetiker].” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

How Berger’s Peer Review Role Figures In Potential Bridge Collapse Settlement

August 26, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
As negotiations near a conclusion for a settlement with victims of last year’s fatal Florida International University bridge collapse, the role of the Louis Berger Group as peer review consultant is proving crucial. Attorneys for families of the six people who were killed and survivors say Berger is the last defendant that has not agreed to terms in lawsuits in state court in Miami against the companies that designed and built the bridge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

January 13, 2017 — Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
Recently, the Federal District Court for the District of Delaware imposed $3 million in punitive sanctions in order to redress harms caused by a company’s bad faith deletion of tens of thousands of emails during the course of litigation. The sanctions were ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which was amended effective December 1, 2015 to permit sanctions for the failure to preserve electronically stored information (“ESI”). In GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.,1 the plaintiff, GN Netcom, brought an antitrust suit alleging that the defendant company, Plantronics, interfered with distributors to stop GN Netcom from marketing its product. Upon receipt of GN Netcom’s demand letter, Plantronics issued a litigation hold and began providing training sessions to its employees to ensure compliance. Upon filing of GN Netcom’s suit, Plantronics issued an updated litigation hold and continued training sessions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES