CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Domtar Update

June 11, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
On May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?” In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Pennsylvania firm Bedwell Co. “has sued the Camden County Improvement Authority, saying it is owed $4.6 million for construction of [the Cooper Medical School of Rowan University]” in Camden, New Jersey, according to the Courier-Post. The Bedwell Co. alleges that its expenses exceeded fifty million, “but that it has been paid only $46 million.” The lawsuit states, as quoted by the Courier-Post, “From its inception, the project was plagued by delays due to defects in the design document and other circumstances that were beyond Bedwell’s control.” Furthermore, there were “an abnormally large quantity of design changes, schedule disputes, schedule disruptions and work-activity interference.” “Representatives of the CCIA and HDR could not be reached for comment Wednesday,” according to the Courier-Post. “Bedwell declined to comment on the allegations in the suit.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

June 03, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause in the contract at issue. The Superior Court—distinguishing between a defendant who files a motion to compel arbitration and a defendant who files preliminary objections based on an arbitration clause—held that, in the latter scenario, if the defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, the statute of limitations is not tolled. This case establishes that, in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seeking to defeat a challenge to a lawsuit based on a purported agreement to arbitrate need to pay close attention to the type of motion the defendant files to defeat the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In Morse, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Fisher Asset Management (Fisher) in 2008 for investment-advisor services. The contract included a provision stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the agreement between the parties shall be determined by arbitration. In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Fisher and two of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint seeking dismissal on grounds that the contract between the plaintiff and Fisher required that the dispute be determined by arbitration. The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the court’s ruling. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

October 20, 2016 — Lyndsey Torp – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
You’ve successfully foreclosed on a commercial building in California, and, thankfully, the borrower moved out after foreclosure or after a period of tenancy. But the borrower left behind all sorts of property – furniture, filing cabinets, records, and other assorted property. While you may be tempted to just toss it all in the dumpster, doing so may subject you to liability. There are several statutes that you should consider when determining how to handle the abandoned property. Statutory Options for a Landlord A landlord-tenant relationship may arise following foreclosure if, for example, the owner of the property accepts rent from the former owner. If the tenant subsequently turns over possession of the commercial property but leaves personal property at the premises,[1] California Civil Code provides a landlord with statutory options to deal with “lost” (Cal. Civ. Code § 2080) or “abandoned” property (Cal. Civ. Code §1993). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

---

Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

March 12, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In 1997, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) decided Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Prop. Corp., 85 Haw. 286, 944 P.2d 83 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). Although not an insurance coverage case, Pancakes addressed the duty to defend in terms of a contractual indemnity obligation. Under challenge in a recent appeal before the ICA, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Pancakes. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 109 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015). The decision is long with detailed facts complicated and many indemnities running in favor of various parties. This post focuses on the decision's discussion of Pancakes. A resident, Mona Arthur, of the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development, was killed when she apparently slipped and fell from a hillside adjacent to the project. She was on the hillside tending to her garden there. At the bottom of the hill was a two foot fence in front of a drainage ditch, where Mona allegedly hit her head. 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

---

Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Property Casualty 360 reported a Hawaii case where the court ruled that an “insurance brokerage firm is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its employees, agents and independent contractors as long as they give the public the appearance that the individual is working as an agent of the brokerage.” The case involved a home that collapsed “during an attempted structural renovation.” The original insurance policy had lapsed, and the “application used to procure the second policy stated that there was no renovation work underway on the property, and thus contained a material misrepresentation which voided the second policy, the [homeowners] were left without insurance on the house.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

March 17, 2011 — Shaun McParland Baldwin

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury” or “property damage” be caused by an “occurrence” and that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury“ or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.



In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivan’s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing , including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

January 13, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage for the insured contractor under Arkansas law when sued for construction defects by two homeowners. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hambuchen Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160364 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016). In one case, the Pierces hired Hambuchen, the insured contractor for the construction of a new home, which was completed in 2006. Two years after moving in, the Pierces experienced water leaks at various locations inside the home and the basement flooded. Water damage rendered the back deck unstable. In 2010 and 2011, Hambuchen made repairs to stop leaks on the decks, but in 2012 the back deck again showed signs of water damage. The Pierces sued, and Auto-Owners provided a defense under a reservation of rights. In the second case, the Lessmanns hired Hambuchen in 2005 as general contractor to construct their new home. Following completion of the home, the Lessmanns complained about scratched windows. The Lessmanns filed suit against Hambuchen for breach of the construction contract by failing to build their home in a workmanlike manner. The Lessmanns filed suit in May 2009. Auto-Owners was not aware of the suit until 2015 when it received notice that the Lessmanns had filed an amended complaint. The Lessmans' suit went to trial and Hambuchen prevailed. 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

---