CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

February 14, 2013 — Heidi Gassman — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Keirns Construction Co. (“Keirns”) hired Landmark Engineering, Ltd. (“Landmark”) to provide a geotechnical investigation and foundation designs for two duplexes Keirns built in Larimer County. Keirns and Landmark signed one contract in 2001 for the geotechnical work and two separate contracts in 2005 for the foundation design of the two duplexes. Each contract contained an identical “risk allocation clause,” which had language specifically limiting Landmark’s liability to Keirns. The risk allocation clause also had language specifically prohibiting claims against individuals and only allowing claims against a corporation. After the two duplexes were built, foundation problems developed, and Keirns filed suit against Landmark for breach of contract and negligence. Keirns also filed suit against two individual employees of Landmark, Wayne Thompson and Larry Miller, for negligence. Messrs. Thompson and Miller performed the geotechnical and design services pursuant to the contracts. Landmark and Messrs. Thompson and Miller filed a motion seeking to enforce the risk of allocation clauses in the contracts, thereby limiting Landmark’s liability. Messrs. Thompson and Miller also filed a summary judgment motion seeking their dismissal from the case based on the prohibition in the risk allocation clause against asserting claims against individuals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman
Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com

---

Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

July 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It seems to be Miller Act time here at Construction Law Musings, not to mention in the Federal District Courts here in Virginia. Last week I discussed what sort of work can form the basis for a Miller Act claim. This week I am discussing the effect of a mandatory mediation contract clause on the same type of claim. I have discussed both the benefits and the possible negative consequences of the inclusion of such a clause in your construction contract. The recent case out of the Norfolk, Virginia Federal District Court recently explored the related question of whether such a clause can be enforced in the context of a Miller Act claim. In United States of America, for the use of Precision Air Conditioning of Brevard Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, the Court was confronted with a possible conflict between the legal requirement that any waiver of the right to pursue a Miller Act claim must be explicitly waived in writing and the clear contractual language between the general contractor and the plaintiff stating that mediation was a condition precedent to suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Subsidence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Landslide

May 23, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied coverage based upon the policy's subsidence exclusion. Atain Spec. Ins. Co. v. JKT Associates, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6351 (9th Cir. March 11, 2022). JKT was hired by Lora Eichner Blanusa in 2011 to perform landscape and hardscape work at her house. After selling the house to Richard Meese, a catastrophic landslide occurred in 2019. Portions of the rear of the property slid downhill by 15 feet. Meese sued JKG and others. The owner of an adjacent property, Kristi Synek, filed a separate action against JKT and others. JKT tendered both suits to Atain, who defended under a reservation of rights. Atain filed a coverage action in federal district court regarding both underlying suits. The district court granted summary judgment to Atain, ruling there was no duty to defend or to indemnify. 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

---

Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

July 27, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As an almost universal rule here in Virginia, failing to show up for court or respond to a lawsuit is a bad idea. Consequences include default judgment against you without the right to defend or make your case. Courts simply enter judgment and the consequences of that judgment will follow. However, and as is often the case around here, there are small exceptions where the courts of Virginia allow the defaulting party off the hook. Sullivan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. KBE Building Corporation is just such a case. In Sullivan Mechanical, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia was faced with a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment from KBE. The facts are laid out in the opinion, but basically come down to the usual subcontractor not paid by the general contractor and general contractor has reasons for non-payment. Subcontractor, Sullivan Mechanical, sued KBE and KBE failed to respond in a timely manner. One day after the deadline for response had passed, Sullivan moved for entry of default and the clerk entered the default that same day. KBE moved to vacate the default a mere 6 days after entry of default. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

August 30, 2017 — H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck. KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation. Reprinted courtesy of H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

December 03, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings, we welcome Surety Bonds.com, a leading online surety provider. SuretyBonds.com specializes in educating current and prospective business owners about local surety requirements. To keep up with surety bond trends, follow and Surety Bonds Insider blog and @suretybond on Twitter. Professionals who work in the construction industry know the laws that regulate the market change constantly. Unfortunately, even government agencies are flawed, which means they sometimes establish nonsensical, arbitrary regulations that leave construction professionals even more confused as to how they’re expected to do their jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Is the Obsession With Recordable Injury Rates a Deadly Safety Distraction?

May 16, 2022 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
On the first morning of 2021, laborer Mason Mack Harris, 25, reported for work that would have qualified for extra holiday pay. On that New Year’s Day, the onsite manager for his employer, Midwest Demolition Co., assigned Harris and a workmate to complete demolition of a 9-ft-high concrete balcony slab at a children’s home renovation project in Lincoln, Neb. According to U.S. Labor Dept. records, they used a concrete saw since neighbors had complained about jackhammer noise from earlier work. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

February 28, 2018 — Theresa A. Guertin and Samantha M. Martino - SDV Blog
In a potentially significant development in New York insurance law, a recent appellate level decision held that an excess liability policy was not obligated to provide coverage where the underlying employer’s liability policy provided unlimited coverage pursuant to New York regulations. The Arthur Vincent & Sons Construction, Inc. v. Century Surety Insurance Co.1 case arose out of an underlying wrongful death claim. Fordham University hired Arthur Vincent and Sons Construction, Inc. (“AVSC”) to install a new roof on its Lewis Calder Center. As is typical of most construction contracts, AVSC agreed to indemnify the University against any claims arising out of its negligence, and to name the University as an additional insured on its commercial general liability policy. AVSC was insured by three policies: (1) a worker’s compensation and employer’s liability policy issued by Commerce and Industry Insur¬ance Company (“CIIC”); (2) a primary CGL policy issued by Century Surety Insurance Company (“Century”); and (3) an excess liability policy issued by Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”). Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---