Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

London Office Builders Aren’t Scared of Brexit Anymore

May 26, 2019 — Jack Sidders - Bloomberg
For London office developers at least, the Brexit waiting game is over. Developers mostly steered clear of doing new projects on spec in the political upheaval that followed the U.K.’s 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Now the surprising resilience of London’s office market, highlighted by technology giants like Alphabet Inc. committing to open new bases in the city, has convinced them that it’s time to break ground. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jack Sidders, Bloomberg

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL

January 24, 2018 — Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & Barger
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ. JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ. DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ. The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held inLiberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred. The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely a remedy for construction defects but the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage. The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed. The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard Glucksman, Glenn Barger, Jon Turigliatto and David Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turgliatto 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

Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

December 02, 2019 — Brent Trenga - Construction Executive
The building and construction industry is a significant consumer of non-renewable energy resources and is contributing to changing the earth’s environment in damaging and irreversible ways. These impacts are being felt in climate-related shifts that include increases in the earth’s average temperature and rising sea levels. A new report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable global temperature data is available. The three hottest years on record were 2015, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, the rise in sea levels is causing “nuisance floods” to become more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the United States grew from two per year to nearly 12. These and other environmental impacts underscore the urgency of battling climate change and how critical it is for all industries—including construction—to stem the tide on this issue. Reducing embodied energy in the built environment is one way the building and construction sector can do its part to address one of the major challenges of this century. Reprinted courtesy of Brent Trenga, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Trenga may be contacted at brent.trenga@kingspan.com

GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

October 09, 2018 — Nicolas Mangon - Engineering News-Record
An unfortunate fact of the architecture and engineering professions and the construction industry is that, between every stage of the process—from planning and design to construction and operations—critical data is lost. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicolas Mangon, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The former mayor of Springfield, Florida has been arrested on charges of insurance fraud. More than a year ago, an investigator for the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation found that an employee of Walker’s construction company was working without workers’ compensation and issued a stop work order. Walker’s employees continued work. The charges were delayed because Walker challenged the stop work order. Once it was determined that the stop work order was issued properly, Walker was charged with a third-degree felony. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

September 22, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vishva Dev, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Shield of Cal. (No. B270094, filed 8/31/16), a California appeals court confirmed that the unequivocal denial of a claim, in whole or in part, commences the running of the statute of limitations for suit on the claim, notwithstanding the insurer’s offer to reconsider on new or additional evidence. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

August 07, 2022 — Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Statutes of limitations establish the period of time within which a claimant must bring an action after it accrues. An action can be filing a lawsuit and, in some instances, filing a demand for arbitration. But a multi-year construction project could be longer than the applicable statute of limitations. For example, under Delaware or North Carolina law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is only three years.1 So a claim for breach of a construction contract that occurred (i.e. accrued) at the beginning of a four-year project under Delaware or North Carolina law may expire before the project is completed. Generally, a claim accrues at the time of the breach (however, it is important to note that this is not always the case and claim accrual could be the subject of an entirely different article). During the course of a multi-year construction project, proposed change orders or claims for additional compensation can sit, unanswered or unpursued, for months. Or, the parties may informally agree as part of regular project communications to put off dealing with a claim head-on until the end of the project. On certain projects, slow-walking a claim is understandable, as a contractor may be hesitant to sue an owner in the middle of a multi-year project and risk upsetting an otherwise good working relationship. But a delay in formally asserting a put-off claim after it accrues could result in the claim falling subject to a statute of limitations defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

May 24, 2021 — Raul Martinez & Elise Klein - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Appellate Partner Raul L. Martinez and Los Angeles Partners Elise D. Klein and Celia Moutes-Lee recently secured a major win in an appeal of a bad faith insurance action. In Wexler v. California Fair Plan Association (Apr. 14, 2021, B303100) __Cal.App.5th__, Division Eight of the Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), the court held that the plaintiff, the daughter of insurance policy holders, had no standing to pursue bad faith allegations against her parents’ insurer for smoke damage to her personal possessions. The daughter’s parents owned a home in the mountains where there was a heightened risk of fires. The parents insured their home with a California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan) owner-occupied dwelling policy (the FAIR Plan Policy). The FAIR Plan Policy only insured the dwelling and its contents against damage from fire, lightning, and internal explosion with limited coverage for smoke damage. The FAIR Plan Policy also expressly disclaimed coverage for individuals not specifically named in the policy. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s name did not appear in any of her parents’ insurance documents. Reprinted courtesy of Raul Martinez, Lewis Brisbois and Elise Klein, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Martinez may be contacted at Raul.Martinez@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Klein may be contacted at Elise.Klein@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES