Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

March 18, 2019 — Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation Strategist
In Hexagon Holdings Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. No. 2017-175-Appeal, 2019 R.I. Lexis 14 (January 17, 2019), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, discussing claims associated with allegedly defective construction, addressed issues involving intended beneficiaries to contracts and the application of the economic loss doctrine. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the building owner, Hexagon Holdings, Inc. (Hexagon) was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract between the general contractor (A/Z Corporation) and the subcontractor, defendant McKenna Roofing and Construction, Inc. (McKenna). In addition, the court held that, in the context of this commercial construction contract, the economic loss doctrine applied and barred Hexagon’s negligence claims against McKenna. Approximately nine years after Hexagon entered into a contract with A/Z Corporation for the construction of a building, Hexagon filed suit against A/Z Corporation’s roofing installation subcontractor, McKenna, and the manufacturer of the roofing system. Hexagon alleged that the roof began to leak shortly after McKenna installed it. Notably, Hexagon did not sue A/Z Corporation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

July 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
You would think I wouldn’t have to discuss the absolute need to respond to any served pleadings, particularly after some of the prior examples of what can happen if you fail to respond. Of course, I wouldn’t be starting a post like this if those that were sued contacted an experienced attorney in a timely fashion and followed this advice. Yet another example of the disastrous results that can occur simply from failing to file responsive pleadings occurred last year in the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA. In Pro-Telligent, LLC v. Amex Int’l, Inc. the Court considered a claim for breach of contract (among other causes of action) by Pro-Telligent against Amex. The operative facts are that Pro-Telligent was a subcontractor to Amex that claimed it was unpaid in the amount of $279,660.27, its Complaint was served on January 7, 2021, and Amex did not respond within the required 21-day window. The Court then held a hearing on February 28, 2020, regarding the validity of the Clerk of Court’s entry of default per the rules of court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

June 09, 2016 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
This article pertains to needed condominium construction defect warranty reform legislation that the Maryland Legislature has been reluctant to enact into law. Below is an explanation of the legislation and a list of practical steps CAI members can take to support the legislation during the upcoming 2017 legislative session. Background The warranty reform legislation was unsuccessfully introduced during the 2016 legislative session as “Senate Bill 250” (“SB 250”) and “House Bill 1170” (“HB 1170”). Both bills were identical, one being filed in the Senate and the other in the House of Delegates. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage

June 06, 2022 — Gary L. LaHendro - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Maryam Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company (No. B311310, filed April 14, 2022, and certified for publication on May 5, 2022), the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District held that Maryam Ghukasian’s insurer, Aegis Security Insurance Company (“Aegis”), had no duty to defend her in an underlying lawsuit alleging she cleared land and cut trees on her neighbors’ property without their consent. The appellate court explained Ms. Ghukasian’s acts of intentionally cutting the trees and clearing the land were not accidental for purposes of insurance coverage, even if she acted on the good faith but mistaken belief the trees were on her property. Ms. Ghukasian owns a home in Glendale, California. She purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from Aegis for the policy period of June 13, 2018 to June 13, 2019 (the “Aegis Policy”). In August 2018, Ms. Ghukasian hired a contractor to clear and cut trees she believed were on her property. However, the trees were on the property of her neighbors, Vrej and George Aintablian. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gary L. LaHendro, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. LaHendro may be contacted at glahendro@hbblaw.com

Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

October 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii State Bar convention will be on October 24, 2014, at the Hawaiian Hilton. The Insurance Coverage Litigation Section will make a presentation from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Three presentations will be made. First, Richard C. Mosher (Anderson Kill), Kathy Dang (Marsh), and Beau Monday (Hawaiian Telcom) will discuss cyber-liability claims and insurance options. Next, David R. Harada-Stone (Tom Petrus & Miller) and I (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert) will address "occurrences," i.e., deciding on and the impact of determining the number of occurrences in particular factual settings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently “took the unprecedented step of formally proposing to take over construction workplace safety in Arizona because it said the state doesn't require proper fall protection.” OSHA’s deputy director, Jordan Barab, told the Wall Street Journal, “We told them we did not think their standard…was at least as effective as ours.” However, “[a] spokeswoman for Arizona's state workplace enforcement agency countered that the state's requirements are adequate, adding that it will respond to the federal notice ‘as appropriate.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES