CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

March 16, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Regardless of the type of contract you are dealing with, “[a]rbitration provisions are contractual in nature, and therefore, construction of such provisions and the contracts in which they appear is a matter of contract interpretation.” Wiener v. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D3012f (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). This means if you want to preserve your right to arbitrate claims you want to make sure your contract unambiguously expresses this right. Taking this one step further, if you want to make sure an arbitrator, and not the court, determines whether the claim is arbitrable if a dispute arises, you want to make sure that right is expressly contained in the arbitration provision. For example, in Wiener, a homeowner sued a home-builder for violation of the building code – a fairly common claim in a construction defect action. The homeowner’s claim dealt with a violation of building code as to exterior stucco deficiencies. The home-builder moved to compel the lawsuit to arbitration based on a structural warranty it provided to the homeowner that contained an arbitration provision. The structural warranty, however, was limited and did not apply to non-load-bearing elements which, per the warranty, were not deemed to have the potential for a major structural defect (e.g., a structural defect to load-bearing elements that would cause the home to be unsafe or inhabitable). The trial court compelled the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the structural warranty. 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

---

Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

February 15, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

The Eleventh Circuit found that the insured caused property damage to areas beyond its own work, obligating the insurer to defend. Addison Ins. Co. v. 4000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass'n, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26870 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017).

The condominium association contracted with Poma Construction Corp. to replace the building's aging concrete balcony railings with new aluminum and glass railings. Poma subcontracted with Windsor Metal Specialties, Inc. to paint the new railings. Work was completed on February 24, 2012. Poma issued a 10-year warranty covering its installation of the railings. Windsor issued a 20-year limited warranty covering the paint job.

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

---

WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

June 15, 2017 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

---

“Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

September 01, 2016 — Michael Lindsay & Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Colorado Supreme Court has approved a settlement between the parties to an appeal of the 2012 Colorado Pool Systems v. Scottsdale Insurance Company Court of Appeals case, leaving that ruling intact. The ruling parses a fine line between uncovered costs of repairing defective work and covered costs of damage caused to nondefective work while repairing defective work. This nuanced opinion, which is now established Colorado law, is worth a second look. In Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that so-called “rip and tear” damage caused by a construction professional to nondefective work while correcting defective work is covered as an “accident” under standard Commercial General Liability insurance language. 317 P.3d 1262 (Colo. App. 2012). A pool company excavated and built a rebar frame in order to construct a pool, but it hired a subcontractor to pour the concrete. An inspector later noticed that some of the rebar was too close to the surface, and the pool company agreed to demolish and replace the pool after an agent of its insurer represented that this loss would be covered. But the agent was wrong, the insurer denied coverage, and litigation ensued. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Lindsay, Snell & Wilmer and Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at mlindsay@swlaw.com Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

December 05, 2022 — Thomas Leffler - AccuWeather
After a historical snowfall event in the Buffalo area this past week, residents weren’t just taking to the driveways and sidewalks to clear snow. In the Buffalo suburb of Orchard Park, New York (home to the NFL’s Buffalo Bills), the 80 inches of snow that accumulated was also cleared off local roofs in order to prevent a major danger to homes. Snow as deep and heavy as the recent lake-effect snowstorm can cause roofs to collapse, threatening the lives of people who live inside. An unfortunate scenario befell Buffalo in November 2014, when a 6-foot snow event known as “Snowvember” led to emergency calls for numerous collapsed roofs around the region. One Orchard Park business, Graffiti Grafix & Signs, had its roof collapse in 2014 and had about a third of the roof come down once again this past week, according to The Buffalo News. Orchard Park Police Chief Patrick Fitzgerald noted in an email that three commercial properties in Orchard Park, including Graffiti Grafix & Signs, suffered damage from roof collapse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of AccuWeather

---

Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

March 28, 2018 — Neal Philip – Insurance Law Blog
As previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine. Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file. Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018) The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neal Philip, Gordon, Reese, Scully, & Mansukhani
Mr. Philip may be contacted at nphilip@grsm.com

---

Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Grund Dagner, a law firm operating in Denver and Boulder, Colorado notes on their blog that when defending a construction defect claim, one of their first steps is to determine if the claims are affected by the statutes of limitations or repose, and that they “have had much success raising these defenses with the court before trial.” Colorado has a two-year statute of limitations, starting from when the homeowner discovers the defect. Further, Colorado’s statute of repose precludes lawsuits beginning “more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property.” Grund Dagner notes that they “recently obtained dismissal of claims related to eight of 22 buildings in a condominium project, where the homeowners in those building observed the defects more than two years before the HOA initiated its claims against our client.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

February 23, 2016 — David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Retention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work. The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the contractor “may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---