CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program

March 15, 2021 — Hugh D. Hughes, Eric M. Clarkson & Mollie H. Levy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The risk of bodily injury lawsuits is an unavoidable reality for property owners and facilities managers (“FMs”) of large commercial sites such as universities, malls, office buildings, or stadiums. Any person who steps foot on the property is a potential plaintiff, including students, tenants, customers, contractors, and vendors. Insurance mitigates these risks, but a property owner’s or FM’s risk transfer strategy should include more than their own suite of general liability and other third-party policies. Ensuring additional insured status on a vendor’s or contractor’s policy is also essential to a comprehensive risk transfer strategy. In a functional risk transfer program, a vendor’s or contractor’s general liability insurer should defend and indemnify property owners or FMs as additional insureds (“AIs”) for liability for bodily injury caused, in whole or in part, by the vendor’s or contractor’s operations. When this works as intended, it effectively transfers costs associated with such a lawsuit from the owner or FM to the vendor’s or contractor’s insurer. It also increases the insurance limits available for a loss. Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C., Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Mollie H. Levy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Hughes may be contacted at HHughes@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at MLevy@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

July 06, 2020 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi who were selected to the 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Each year no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®

December 10, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to announce the firm has been recognized for its fifth consecutive year in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms® and is ranked by Best Lawyers® regionally in three practice areas. To read the publication, please click here. Metropolitan Tier 1 Las Vegas: Litigation – Construction Orange County: Litigation – Construction Metropolitan Tier 2 Orange County: Family Law San Diego: Litigation – Real Estate Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

February 22, 2018 — Brenda Radmacher – Construction Law Blog

The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision on a critical issue in the residential construction industry – the claims for construction defects that a California homeowner can bring against a builder or seller of new residential properties in California.

Holding

In McMillin Albany v. The Superior Court of Kern County, the Court held that California’s Right to Repair Act (California Civil Code, sections 895, et seq.) (the “Act”) is the exclusive remedy for homeowners claiming defective construction of new residences in California.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com

---

Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Bardwells bought a new home in the Philadelphia area in 2000. Now, thirteen years later they’ve learned that their house has been slowly rotting away due to moisture trapped beneath the stucco. And they’re not alone. The O’Days bought a home for about $1 million, and it now needs about $200,000 in repairs. All the stucco has been removed and their home is being rebuilt. Monica Bardwell said that “everything was rotted,” and “there was not a piece of good wood to be salvaged.” Other area homeowners are finding similar problems. Wendy Meyer had her home inspected by Kevin Thompson. Mr. Thompson said, “I shouldn’t be able to take a piece of plywood like that and crush it in my hands completely disintegrated.” Mr. Thompson described it as due to “faulty construction,” which he estimated accounted for such damage “95 percent of the time.” The Pennsylvania Builders Association says that diligent homeowners can head off problems with maintenance. “Make sure water isn’t continually on the outside of the stucco,” said Brent Sailhamer of the PBA. “Make sure there are no large cracks where water can seep behind the stucco.” For those who bought their homes as far back as the Bardwells, it’s already too late to sue anyone. Pennsylvania construction defect law allows 12 years for lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Be Careful When Requiring Fitness for Duty Examinations

October 21, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Fitness for Duty examinations can be an important part of an employer’s hiring and retention protocol. The Nebraska Supreme Court recently clarified when an employer may require applicants and employees to undergo fitness for duty examinations. In Arens v. Nebco, Inc., the court ruled that an employer must have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its demand that a current employee submit to a fitness for duty examination. In this case, Lenard Arens suffered two significant injuries over the course of his 25 years of employment with Nebco. The second injury, a closed head injury, limited the type of work he could do and required written instructions due to short term memory loss. Arens was assigned to drive tractor-trailer trucks. Several years after returning to work, Arens had two minor accidents with his truck within a matter of days. Arens supervisor required him to undergo fitness for duty examination. Arens failed the fitness for duty examination and was terminated. Arens filed suit, claiming that Nebco discriminated against him by making him take a fitness for duty test. 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

---

"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

February 23, 2016 — David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Retention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work. The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the contractor “may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

March 06, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers. There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---