CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

October 12, 2020 — Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Late last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.” The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

October 08, 2014 — Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic, Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fleet v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. G050049, published 9/23/14, filed 8/25/14), a California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of a lender, where the homeowners had adequately alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. The homeowners alleged that they made timely payments during the trial period plan under the modification program, but before the last payment was due, the lender foreclosed and their house was sold. The homeowners had applied for a loan modification and were approved for a trial period plan under the modification program. They were required to make three monthly payments and verify financial hardship to permanently modify their loan. The homeowners made two payments and were told that foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. But before the third payment was due, the lender foreclosed. The trial court found that the trial period plan was not a binding loan modification agreement, so the homeowners had no right to any guaranteed loan modification. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic and Blythe Golay Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

February 03, 2020 — Tim Scully - Porter Law Group
In California there are few tools which work to protect the employer, and California employers may have just lost another one. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newson signed into law AB 51, which bans the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts. More specifically, AB 51 adds Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code, making it unlawful to require a prospective employee, or current employee, to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or the California Labor Code, starting January 1, 2020. Additionally, an employer is also prohibited from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant or employee who may choose not to sign a voluntary arbitration agreement. Previously, an employer was able to require employees and prospective employees to agree to arbitration to resolve almost any and all disputes between the employee and the employer as a term of their employment. These terms were often the bulk of employers’ written contracts. Employers could have employees waive the right to a jury trial, the right to court costs, and other expenses, provided that the employer paid for the expenses of the alternative dispute resolution. The injured employees right to recover attorney’s fees was always a non-waivable right under the Labor Code. There were only a few actions which could not be arbitrated, the most prominent exception being the right to seek recovery under the Private Attorney’s General Action (PAGA). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Scully, Porter Law Group
Mr. Scully may be contacted at tscully@porterlaw.com

---

Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

June 02, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
This past week Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 269. The new law is the latest attempt to curb lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related states laws which many businesses and governmental entities have called unfair and predatory. Others, have used more colorful descriptions. The ADA Debate At the heart of the debate is a small but growing number of ADA plaintiffs who regularly sue businesses and governmental entities alleging that their properties do not provide equal access to disabled individuals. These ADA plaintiffs and their attorneys, including other members of the disabled community, argue that these lawsuits improve access to places of public accommodation by disabled individuals, are permitted under the law, and that the businesses and government agencies they sue can’t be heard to complain since the ADA has been on the books for over twenty-five years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate Shanna B. Carter on Obtaining Another Defense Award at Arbitration!

January 14, 2025 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The case arose from an incident at Plaintiff’s residence where she alleged that a failure to properly diagnose an issue with her HVAC unit led to its destruction, displacement from her home, and damage to her roof and kitchen, resulting in a diminution of value to her house. Jeff and Shanna represented the HVAC contractor, who denied any wrongdoing during the two-day arbitration at which a total of six witnesses were examined. Jeff and Shanna utilized Plaintiff’s own experts’ testimony to successfully challenge liability and bring forth a motion for spoliation, resulting in a complete defense award for Jeff and Shanna’s client, which included an award of costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

August 07, 2018 — Gregory Capps & Zachery Roth - White and Williams LLP
On July 16, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Travelers Indemnity Company v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, No. 420, 2017 (Del. Jul. 16, 2018), that a court’s choice of law inquiry in an insurance coverage dispute should focus on the contacts most relevant to the insurance contract rather than the location of the underlying claims. In Travelers, CNH Industrial America, LLC (CNH), sought coverage for asbestos liabilities associated with J.I. Case, Inc., a subsidiary it had acquired, under policies issued to J.I. Case and its former parent company, Tenneco, Inc. The issue before the Delaware Supreme Court was whether the anti-assignment clause in three Travelers policies issued to Tenneco, Inc. precluded the assignment of the policies to CNH. The validity of the assignment turned on which state’s law governed the dispute. (Under Wisconsin law, the parties agreed that the assignment was valid, while under Texas law, the parties agreed the assignment was invalid.) Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White and Williams LLP and Zachery Roth, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/11/22)

May 30, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The supply of homes for sale is on the uptick, the White House releases a plan to improve the permitting process for infrastructure projects, cryptocurrency opens the door to a new class of property owners, and more.

• Though the number of active listings is still down 67% from pre-pandemic levels, the supply of homes for sale is finally showing signs of improvement. (Diana Olick, CNBC)
• Large corporations and institutional investors are flocking to buy digital real estate, with parcels being bought faster than they can be created. (Dan Patterson, CBS News)
• London-based company, Admix, has been purchasing real estate in various Metaverse platforms and leasing them to companies interested in becoming involved in the online virtual space. (Nate Berg, Fast Company)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

February 26, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Nebraska Court of Appeals threw a wrench into the calculation of your warranty earlier this year in Adams v. Manchester Park, LLC and Southfork Homes, Inc. In that case, the court found that the statute of limitations for a warranty claim started running after the homebuilder’s warranty expired. So, the four year breach of warranty statute of limitations did not begin until after the one year homebuilder warranty expired. In this case, the homeowner purchased a home from Southfork in September, 2007. The purchase agreement provided for a one-year New Home Limited Warranty which covered material defects in workmanship and materials. The homeowner noticed cracks in the drywall and problems with windows within 6 months of the purchase. The builder told the homeowner to keep track of all the problems and they would be fixed at the yearend walk through. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---