Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

March 25, 2011 — Alicante HOA Website

According to recent posts in the Alicante HOA website, construction experts and legal counsel have been retained. The HOA board has been informed that testing of a variety of the building’s components are underway or will begin in the near future.

2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

June 06, 2018 — Melinda S. Gentile - Peckar & Abramson
The 2018 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Florida Governor Rick Scott has 15 days to act on the legislation once each Bill has passed the House and Senate. Bills signed by the Governor go into effect on July 1, 2018, unless indicated otherwise. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melinda Gentile, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled, with one dissent, that the architectural firm that designed a home was not responsible to the injuries caused to guests when a balcony collapsed. Judge David Puryear wrote the majority opinion in Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith.

Black + Vernooy designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield in 2000. The Maxfields hired a general contractor to build the home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build a balcony; however, the subcontractor did not follow the architect’s design in building the balcony.

A year after the house was completed; the Maxfields were visited by Lou Ann Smith and Karen Gravely. The balcony collapsed under the two women. Ms. Gravely suffered a broken finger, a crushed toe, and bruises. Ms. Smith was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the fall. They sued the Maxfields, the general contractor, and the architects for negligence. The Maxfields and the general contractor settled. A jury found that the architects held 10% of the responsibility. The architects appealed the judgment of the district court.

The Appeals Court reversed this judgment, noting that “there has been no allegation that the Architects negligently designed the balcony or that the Architects actually created the defects at issue.” Further, “the Smiths allege that the defect was caused by the construction practices of the contractor and subcontractor when the balcony was not built in accordance with the design plans of the Architects.”

The court found that even though the architects had a duty “to endeavor to guard against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the home and to generally ascertain whether the home was being built in compliance with the construction plans,” this duty did not extend to third parties.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

September 03, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to an article in JD Supra Business Advisor (written by Mark S. DePillis, Carl G. Roberts, Benjamin M. Schmidt, and Matthew White of Ballard Spahr LLP), “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a builder’s implied warranty of habitability extends only to the initial buyer of a home, and not to subsequent purchasers.” This reversed an earlier ruling in Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc. “that created more expansive liability for home builders.” DePillis, Roberts, Schmidt, and White suggested that “builders should monitor possible future legislation addressing the public policy issues that the Supreme Court identified as falling squarely within the legislature’s domain.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

March 18, 2019 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

February 26, 2024 — Rosanna Shamash - Construction Executive
The tides are shifting in the construction industry when it comes to legal matters—and business owners could feel the brunt of it. Recent legislative changes in the state of New York could signal how workers’ compensation cases move forward across the country and impact business owners in the space. Arguably, New York has historically laid the groundwork for workers’ compensation law in numerous other states. Now, we’re seeing a clear shift in favor of workers with some of the recent legislative changes. Owners, operators and executives in the construction space have increasingly found themselves facing costly claims that in years prior carried a smaller dollar value and were largely viewed as inconsequential. So, what’s the best way for business owners in the construction industry to protect their businesses for the future? Start by gaining a basic understanding of changes in the legal landscape, by securing defense attorneys who know the construction space and by taking steps to protect your business before an incident happens. Reprinted courtesy of Rosanna Shamash, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

March 01, 2017 — Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
The new Part 107 FAA Rules took effect on Monday, August 29, 2016. Unlike the previous requirements for flying a drone commercially, the new rules are much more simplistic and permissive of a broad amount of commercial drone usage. The following is the basic knowledge you need to legally use a drone on your future projects. To fly a drone commercially, there are now four major requirements:

You must be at least sixteen years old;
You must register your drone online;
You must pass an aviation knowledge test administered at an FAA-approved testing center; and
You must pass review by the Transportation Security Administration.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

October 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Los Angeles Times has continued its series on the seismic safety of buildings in downtown Los Angeles. According to the article, Los Angeles only requires seismic retrofits of buildings if their purpose is being changed. One investor, Izak Shomof, bought a residential hotel and kept it as one to avoid retrofitting the building. He converted an office building to upscale residences and so the building was strengthened. His son, Eric Shomof, keeps an office in the unreinforced building. He said if more retrofitting were required, “you’d see a lot more vacant buildings down here,” describing the process as “not cheap.” Depending on whether or when a building has changed its use, the concrete buildings of downtown Los Angeles may or may not be protected against failure in an earthquake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES