Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

November 02, 2017 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any . . . civil action . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1119(b) bars discovery or admission in evidence of any “writing . . . prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(b) (emphasis added). Finally, section 1119(c) provides that “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation . . . shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(c) (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

“Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

April 20, 2017 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently, a reader reached out to me to ask about case examples of an engineer losing his insurance coverage because he agreed to a “heightened” or “best” standard of care. The reader stated that he was an insurance adviser who handled various construction professional coverages, and that in his experience it was very unusual to deny or limit damages because of a heightened standard of care. This comment led me to an informal survey of several insurance brokers that I deal with, and the general consensus is that instead of outright denying a claim, most E&O insurers will issue a “reservation of rights” letter. What that means is that the insurance company will defend the claim (i.e., pay for your lawyer to defend you and your Firm), but with the understanding that they are (potentially) denying any liability for any adverse money judgment against you. Inevitably, most such cases settle, but if they do not, the question then is whether the heightened duty created part of the damages. The insurer may ask to intervene in the lawsuit to ask the jury that question, in an effort to limit its share of the damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

January 16, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit recently held that the district court's order compelling appraisal and staying the proceedings pending appraisal was an interlocutory order that was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (a) (1). Positano Place at Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27961 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023). Postiano Condominium Association suffered damage from Hurricane Irma. Pastiano notified its insurer, Empire, seven months later. Empire investigated the claim and inspected the property. Positano sent a written request for appraisal. Empire did not respond and Pastiano filed suit, alleging that the parties' dispute was not a coverage dispute but a dispute over the amount of the loss. Postiano moved to compel appraisal and to stay the proceedings pending completion of the appraisal. 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

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit that had alleged that funding for the new Vikings stadium was unconstitutional, according to KARE. "We were so hopeful the courts would deal with this expeditiously and they did," said Michele Kelm-Helgen, chair of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority told KARE. "And they would be definitive in their result and they were." Doug Mann, former Minneapolis mayoral candidate, had been the one to file the lawsuit. Mann told KARE 11 that “the courts made their ‘political stance loud and clear’ and said he did not know if he would pursue any other legal action. But he maintained his position the stadium funding wasn't legally vetted.” Minnesota Vikings spokesperson Lester Bagley declared, “This was the last remaining hurdle that we see in front of us. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's and Court of Appeals' action,” KARE reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insured was only entitled to the actual cost value of his loss, not the replacement cost. Lytle v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 756 (Sept. 30, 2015). The insured's home was built around 1903. On June 21, 2011, the insured discovered damage to his home because of a severe storm. He made a claim with his insurer, Country Mutual. The policy contained a depreciation holdback provision. The provision said the insurer would not pay more than the actual cash value until the actual repair or replacement was complete. If the insured elected to accept actual cash value, he would have one year from the date of the loss to repair or replace the damaged property and request the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost. 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

Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

November 21, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
Originally published by CDJ on June 5, 2017 Background In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees. After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor. Impact This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters. 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

White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

November 08, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Media Law. Our Boston, Delaware, New Jersey, New York City and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. National Tier 1 Insurance Law National Tier 2 Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law National Tier 3 Media Law Metropolitan Tier 1 Boston Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

September 28, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Property insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer. By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES