Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

December 16, 2019 — Brian A. Wolf & Miles D. Jolley - Smith Currie
Subcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath. The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence. Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim. Reprinted courtesy of Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

July 06, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia recently issued an opinion that should get the attention of any contractor or subcontractor performing work on a federal funded construction project. In U.S. ex rel IBEW Local 98 v. The Fairfield Company, the federal court held that a contractor on a SEPTA project could be held liable under the False Claims Act for failing to pay its workers under the Davis Bacon Act. The court found that liability was appropriate under the FCA even through the contractor did not knowingly violate the Davis Bacon Act. The court awarded the plaintiff over $1,000,000 in damages and an additional over $1,000,000 in attorneys fees. An Extremely Brief Primer on the FCA A full discussion of the FCA is beyond the realm of this blog post and you could write a book on FCA cases. But in a nutshell, the FCA prohibits a contractor from knowingly submitting a claim for payment to the federal government (or an entity receiving funding from the federal government, like SEPTA) that is false. Importantly, knowingly does not equal actual knowledge of the falsity of the claim. Rather, “reckless disregard of the truth or falsity” of the submission is sufficient. As explained below, this standard played an important role in the court’s decision and should give contractors performing work on federally funded projects pause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

"Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

July 06, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although the appellate court agreed there was property damage caused by an occurrence, the "your work" exclusion barred the insured contractor's claim. King's Cove Marina, LLC v. Lambert Commercial Construction. LLC, 2019 Minn. App. LEXIS 389 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2019). King's Cover Marina sought to expand and remodel its main building. The marina hired Lambert to perform the remodeling project. Lambert hired Roehl Construction, Inc. as a subcontractor to install new concrete footings on the main level of the building and to provide concrete for the second-level mezzanine floor. After completion, the marina sued Lambert for breach of contract and negligence. The marina alleged that the concrete floors on the first and second levels were not constructed in accordance with industry standards or with project plans and specifications, resulting in excessive movement and cracking of the new concrete floors. Lambert tendered its defense to its insurer, United Fire & Casualty Company. United Fire defended under a reservation of rights and later sued Lambert for declaratory judgment. 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

Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

October 02, 2015 — David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fargo Shows Record Home Building

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Home builders in the area of Fargo, North Dakota are describing growth in the area as “enormous.” Darrick Guthmiller, the president of the Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead noted that in sixteen years of building homes, this was the best he’d seen. The Home Builders Association expects that next year might even be better. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has named Grace V. B. Garcia one of its 2013 Top Women of the Law. She is an attorney at Morrison Mahoney LLP in Boston, and her practice focuses on construction law, product liability, premises liability, commercial litigation, and American with Disability Act cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

November 25, 2024 — Christopher F. Graham & Morgan A. Goldstein - White and Williams LLP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ground leases are an important – if somewhat unusual – part of the real estate finance industry. Because they typically cover large expensive properties like Rockefeller Center and The Empire State Building, to name two, and last a long time (99 years and up to start) the likelihood of something unexpected or unintended happening is high. This likelihood increases dramatically if, as highlighted below, one or both of the lease parties’ files for bankruptcy. Accordingly, real estate professionals should take note and take care when entering into any transaction involving a ground lease. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher F. Graham, White and Williams LLP and Morgan A. Goldstein, White and Williams LLP Mr. Graham may be contacted at grahamc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Goldstein may be contacted at goldsteinm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

June 25, 2019 — John Bolesta & Keahn Morris - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
It is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities. A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion. Reprinted courtesy of John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES