CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Property Casualty 360 listed four common misconceptions that many homeowners have about flood insurance. First myth on the list was, “I don’t have to worry about flooding because I don’t live near a body of water.” The author pointed out recent floods in desert areas such as Arizona and Nevada. “I don't qualify for government flood insurance because my property isn’t located in a flood plain,” made number two on the list. According to Property Casualty 360, “NFIP can provide coverage available to any homeowner, regardless of their location.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

July 13, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Cindy J. Lee - ConsensusDocs
On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

June 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
That’s it. You’ve had it. They can take their job and shove it! But can you really tell an owner on a construction project to proverbially shove it where the sun don’t shine? Well, far be it for me to tread on your First Amendment Rights or stick my nose into the subsequently brought public disturbance charges against you. But can you legally tell an owner to shove it, and that you’re no longer going to perform work on their [insert expletive] project? Well, indeed you can, in limited circumstances, and it’s called a “Stop Work Notice.” Note: A stop work notice is different from a stop payment notice. What is a stop work notice? A stop work notice is a notice given by a direct contractor to a project owner that the contractor will stop work if an amount owed to the contract is not paid within 10 days after notice is given. 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

---

“I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

September 30, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Gables Construction v. Red Coats, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 419, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals considered whether a contractual waiver of subrogation in the prime contract for a construction project barred a third party – a fire watch vendor hired to guard the worksite – from pursuing a contribution claim against the general contractor. The court concluded that the general contractor could not rely on the waiver of subrogation clause to defeat the contribution claim of the vendor, who was not a party to the prime contract. As noted by the court, holding that a waiver of subrogation clause bars the contribution claims of an entity that was not a party to the contract would violate the intent of the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA). When dealing with claims involving construction projects, there may exist multiple contracts between various parties that contain waivers of subrogation. The enforceability of such waivers can be limited by several factors, including the jurisdiction of the loss, the language of the waiver and the parties to the contract. In Gables Construction, Upper Rock, Inc. (Upper Rock), the owner, contracted with a general contractor, Gables Construction (GCI) (hereinafter referred to as the “prime contract”), to construct an apartment complex. After someone stole a bobcat tractor from the jobsite, Gables Residential Services Incorporated (GRSI), GCI’s parent company, signed a vendor services agreement (VSA) with Red Coats to provide a fire watch and other security services for the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

June 07, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here. As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

February 14, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021. Background The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

May 23, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
After two serious safety incidents in consecutive days, the Boston-area’s largest contractor voluntarily issued a safety stand down on all projects in Boston through May 6. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

November 24, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment seeking to reject the insured's collapse claim. Gnannn v. United Servs. Auto, Ass'n, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1955 (Conn. Super Ct. July 11, 2019). The insureds' home was built in 1985 and they purchased their home in 1993. A home inspection reported that some settlement and curing related cracks existed in the slab floor, but no signs of abnormal settlement were noticed. The concrete walls were in overall good condition. In 2015, the insureds became aware of abnormal cracking in the basement. USAA was informed of the claim but denied coverage in October 2015. The insureds sued USAA. After suit was filed, the insureds hired an engineer, David Grandpre, to inspect their home. He observed severe cracking in the basement walls caused by an expansive chemical reaction within the concrete. The structure was not in imminent peril of falling down, and it continued as insureds' residence. But Mr. Grandpre noticed bulging and bowing, evidence that the concrete basement walls had failed and had begun to move inward due to the lateral pressure of the soil outside the home. 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

---