Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

2024 Construction Law Update

December 23, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We would like to wish you and yours a happy holiday season as we approach 2024. The first half of the 2023-2024 legislative session saw the introduction of 3,028 bills, which, according to legislative observers, are the most bills introduced in a session in more than a decade, perhaps reflecting the fact that California has a record number of new legislators with over a quarter taking the oath of office for the first time. Of these bills, Governor Newsom signed nearly 400 into law including several impacting the construction industry related to climate change and housing affordability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

March 23, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Truck Ins. Exchange v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 03-08-00526-CV (Tex. App. 3d Aug. 27, 2010), insured contractor DCI was sued by the project owner seeking damages for defective construction. DCI tendered its defense to its CGL insurers Truck and Mid-Continent. Truck agreed to defend while Mid-Continent denied a defense. While the underlying suit was pending, Mid-Continent sued DCI, but not Truck, and obtained a judicial declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify DCI in the underlying suit. After settling the underlying suit, Truck sued Mid-Continent seeking contribution towards defense costs and indemnity payments. The state trial court entered summary judgment for Mid-Continent. The intermediate appellate court affirmed.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

November 17, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the duty to defend in long latency disease cases should be prorated between the insurer and insured when the policies cover for only a portion of the time in which the exposure occurred. Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 2016 La. LEXIS 1675 (La. Sept. 7, 2016). 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

New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing its prior decision, the New York Court of Appeals held that the insurer could raise policy exclusions regarding its duty to indemnify after it incorrectly denied its duty to defend. K2 Invest. Group, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 201 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2014). The insured was sued for legal malpractice. His insurer, American Guarantee, refused to defend and a default judgment was entered. The insured assigned his rights against American Guarantee to the plaintiffs. When the underlying plaintiffs sued, American Guarantee said coverage was barred by two exclusions. In a previous decision, K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. Am Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 21 NY 3d 284, the court held that American Guarantee's breach of its duty to defend prevented it from relying on policy exclusions. This, however, contradicted another case issued by the court, Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y 2d 419 (1985). 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

City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Pawtucket, Rhode Island’s mayor, Donald Grebien, has asked their city council to approve “a forensic investigation of the Pawtucket City Hall tower to determine whether the city should sue the contractor that repaired it eight years ago,” the Valley Breeze reported. Back in 2011, “city officials had been unable to locate a signed contract for the tower project as they sought to hold NER responsible for continued leaking into the structure just five years after the company's $3 million renovation project was complete,” according to the Valley Breeze. “The costs of that project grew to $4.6 million once interest was factored in.” Documents have recently been discovered that Grebien believes may open the possibility to sue NER. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

April 01, 2015 — Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
Virtually all of the states in the country have "Right to Repair" statutes. We follow the various states legislatures to determine what trends or developments are occurring. For years, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, and Barger has prepared a compendium that provides the salient points of these Right to Repair statutes. In this extended BULLETIN we provide a discussion of important and very recent developments that are occurring in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Colorado. In Nevada, Governor Brian Sandoval very recently signed The Homeowner Protections Act of 2015, representing a massive transformation to Nevada's Right to Repair Act in the builder's favor, including but not limited to removal of the attorney fees provision as part of claimant's damages. In Arizona, Governor Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2578 in March 2015, amending Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-1361 et. Seq. by eliminating a homeowner’s statutory opportunity to recover attorney and expert fees and providing a builder the right to repair the alleged defects. In Florida, Bill 87 proposes to shorten the statute of limitations, requires more detail in the Homeowner's notice of defects, and allows a builder to use a prior settlement in lieu of repair as an affirmative defense against subsequent claims. In Colorado, lawmakers are proposing to place additional conditions in front of an HOA board before filing suit and require alternative dispute resolution for HOA Condominium Defect Claims even if the requirement no longer exists at the time the claim is brought. NEVADA: GOVERNOR SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIES NEVADA'S RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT WITH THE SIGNING OF ASSEMBLY BILL 125 Nevada's Right to Repair Act has been extensively modified by the signing of Assembly Bill 125 also known as the Homeowner Protections Act of 2015. The Act considerably revises Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statute ("NRS") governing construction defect actions. According to Governor Brian Sandoval, the signing of the first major bill of the legislative session in Nevada "discourages frivolous litigation and strengthens Nevada's rebounding housing market."1 Among other provisions, the Homeowner's Protection Act removes a claimant's ability to recover reasonable attorney fees as part of the claimant's damages, shortens the statutes of repose, defines the duty to defend, and prohibits a claimant from filing a notice of construction defects unless the claimant has submitted a claim under the homeowner's warranty and the insurer has denied the claim. Only claims that have been denied under the homeowner's warranty may be claimed. Additionally, the term "construction defect" is now defined as a defect "(1) which presents an unreasonable risk of injury to a person or property; or (2) which is not completed in a good and workmanlike manner and proximately causes physical damage to the resident or appurtenance." Critically, the Act now requires that the notice of construction defects (1) state in "specific detail" rather than reasonable detail, each defect, damage, and injury to each residence or appurtenance that is subject to the notice; (2) state the exact location of each defect, damage, and injury, rather than describe in reasonable detail the location of the defect; and (3) include a statement signed by the owner of the residence or appurtenance in the notice that the owner verifies that each defect, damage and injury exists in the residence or appurtenance. Although not every revision is set forth above, the passing of The Homeowner's Protection Act appears to be a colossal victory for builders as the majority of the revisions to NRS Chapter 40 are favorable to the builder while additional or heightened requirements have been placed upon homeowners who wish to bring a claim. The following two Right to Repair updates concern proposed bills that also seek to radically change the pre-claim construction defect landscape. ARIZONA: BUILDERS NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPAIR INSTEAD OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPAIR WHILE HOMEOWNERS NO LONGER HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPERT FEES In March 2015, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law House Bill 2578, revising key portions of the Right to Repair pursuant to the Purchaser Dwelling Act (Arizona Revised Statute ("A.R.S.") Section 12-1361 et. seq. Important categories of the Act affected by the new law include the builder's right to repair or replace, the process of repair or replacement, dwelling actions, and homeowners' association dwelling actions. Most notably, prior to filing a construction defect suit, or a "dwelling action" as defined in A.R.S. Section 12-1361 et. seq., a homeowner must provide written notice detailing the basis of a dwelling action and must allow the builder to repair or replace the alleged construction defects. Another significant revision includes the elimination of the prevailing homeowner's statutory right to reasonable attorney fees, witness fees and taxable costs in a dwelling action. Bill 2578 also revised the definitions of "Construction Codes," "Construction Defect," "Construction Professional," and "Material Deficiency." Homeowner Associations now must disclose additional information regarding the claim to its members and must show compliance with procedures set forth in the community documents. Clearly, Arizona's legislature is seeking to reduce the amount of frivolous construction defects suits with the elimination of a prevailing homeowner's right to reasonable attorney fees and expert fees. Moreover, the Legislature now provides builders in Arizona with the right to make repairs to alleged construction defects if they so choose. FLORIDA: FLORIDA GENERAL CONTRACTORS SEEK AGGRESSIVE AMENDMENT TO PRE-CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DEFECT PROCESS WITH BILL 87 Florida's Right to Repair Act, Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, may be extensively revised in the near future. With the help of the South Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, House of Representatives Bill 87 will be presented as an amendment to the Pre-Claim Construction Defect requirements set forth in Chapter 558. The proposed bill is aggressive and seeks to address issues in the current statute. These deficiencies have seemingly prevented construction defect claims from being resolved without the filing of a civil suit. Notably, the statute of limitations period for a property owner to file suit for construction defects would be shortened based upon the revision of the term "completion of a building or improvement" to include issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Additionally, property owners would be subject to additional requirements for issuing a notice of claim, including specific identification of locations of each alleged construction defect as well as the specific provisions of the building code, project plans, project drawings, project specifications, or other documentation, information or authority that serve as the basis of the claim for each alleged construction defect. Perhaps most importantly, the bill provides that if a construction defect is settled by repairs offered by the contractor during the Chapter 558 claims process but the repairs fail to fully correct the defects and the owner or association then files suit because the issue was not resolved, the defendant may claim that the issue was previously resolved and the plaintiff owner may face sanctions. Even if the bill as proposed does not pass in its current form, on the heels of Nevada's Right to Repair Act overhaul, it may serve to encourage other states, including California, to take another look at their Right to Repair Act procedures. COLORADO: UPDATE FROM CGDRB SEPTEMBER 2014 BULLETIN: COLORADO PROPOSED LEGISLATION RE: HOA CONDOMINIUM DEFECT CLAIMS In September 2014, we provided an important discussion of potential significant tort reform legislation presented in Colorado regarding construction claims by homeowner associations for condominiums. This Bulletin serves as an update to that discussion as intense debate over legislative reform to provide condominium builders in Colorado more legal protections has heated up again. On October 13, 2014, the city of Lakewood became the first Colorado municipality to pass a “right to repair” measure with respect to common interest communities. The Lakewood measure gives builders a right to repair construction defects before homeowner associations take legal action and requires a homeowner majority approval before legal action is taken. On February 10, 2015, two bipartisan Senators introduced Senate Bill 177, a bill proposing changes to the prerequisites for a homeowner association to file a construction defect action under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. SB 177, if passed in its current form, would require:

That when the governing documents of a common interest community require mediation or arbitration of a construction defect claim and the requirement is later amended or removed, mediation or arbitration is still required for a construction defect claim;
That the mediation or arbitration take place in the judicial district in which the common interest community is located;
That the arbitrator (1) be a neutral third party; (2) make certain disclosures before being selected; and (3) be selected as specified in the community's governing documents or, if not specified, in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act;
That before a construction defect claim is filed on behalf of the homeowner association: (1) the parties must submit the matter to mediation; and (2) the board must give advance notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of the projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim, and must obtain the written consent of a majority of the unit owners.
That the disclosures required prior to the purchase and sale of property in a common interest community a notice that the community's governing documents may require binding arbitration of certain disputes.

As explained in our previous Bulletin, currently, in Colorado, homeowner association boards are only required to obtain two condominium owners’ consent to file a construction defect suit. Similar to SB 220, which proposed a number of the same requirements, SB 177 would likely have the potential effect of reducing the number of lawsuits filed against builders and decrease the treat of frivolous claims; and allow the parties an opportunity to resolve their issues short of litigation. On March 18, 2015, the Colorado Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology voted 6-2 to forward SB-177 to the full Senate with four minor amendments. The amendments provide:

The homeowner association’s attorney can prepare the disclosures that must be presented to unit owners prior to filing a construction defect claim;
Voting may be done by proxy;
The parties must agree on an arbitrator. If they cannot agree, they may petition the court to appoint one. Preference will be given to the arbitrator designated in the community’s governing documents; and
A different list of disclosure topics is required.

Also introduced this year is SB 091, a bill to shorten the Colorado’s construction defect statute of repose to a homeowner from bringing an action after three years. On March 16, 2015, the Colorado Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs voted to pass SB 091 to the full Senate with two substantive amendments. The first amendment excludes any multifamily developments from being effected by the shortened statute of repose. The second amendment proposes the statute of repose only be shortened to five years, plus an additional year if the defect manifests in year five. Currently, in Colorado, if a homeowner does not discover a construction defect within six years of a house’s completion, the homeowner may forfeit all legal rights to seek repair. Again, SB 091 would protect builders from frivolous or untimely claims by homeowners. We will continue to monitor development of these bills and others that may be proposed in the future. If we can provide any further information concerning these developments or you are interested in receiving our compendium of the various right repair statutes please let us know. 1 As reported by KTVN-TV in Reno, Nevada: http://www.ktvn.com/story/28163519/senate-passes-constructiondefect-bill-sends-to-governor-sandoval. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

January 22, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The magistrate judge recommended that the insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied in a case involving coverage for the insured subcontractor's alleged faulty workmanship. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Sonny Glasbrenner, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190019 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2023). Cone & Graham (C&G), the general contractor, subcontracted with Sonny Glasbrenner, Inc. (SGI) to work on the project. The project involved the rehabilitation of a bridge due to deterioration of the existing concrete bridge deck by adding additional cross bracing to further stiffen the steel girders and using special lightweight concrete. C&G contracted SGH to demolish the existing concrete bridge deck. SGI completed the work. Thereafter, C&G made a demand to SGI for alleged damaged caused by SGI's work. C&G alleged that SGI was negligent in performing the demolition work, causing substantial damage to the existing bridge girders. C&G sued SGI. 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

Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

April 20, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.

After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”

“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”

Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:

[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.

[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.

[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.

[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.

[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.

[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.

In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”

The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”

The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.

The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”

James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:

“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.

In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits buildersâ€™ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”

The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.