CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

February 24, 2020 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
For the past several years, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight has been closely following news of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT’s”) exclusion of non-minority women-owned Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBEs”)[1] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. See ACS’s letter of January 9, 2014 and blog articles of June 2, 2017 and September 21, 2017. In a striking—and long awaited—decision issued just days ago, USDOT rejected WSDOT’s recommendation to unwind the exclusion of non-minority women-owned DBEs from COA Goals, meaning women-owned DBEs in Washington remain excluded from DBE COA participation goals until September 2020. As background, the DBE program is a program created by Congress with the goal of increasing women and minority-owned business participation in federally-funded transportation contracting. To withstand constitutional scrutiny, each state must tailor its program to the specific discrimination found to exist in that state.[2] To that end, every three years, WSDOT must conduct a “Disparity Study,” aimed at statistically measuring the “discrimination” in the marketplace. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

---

68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

September 23, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
(August 15, 2024) – 68 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 26 offices have been named to the 5th edition of “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.” Congratulations to the following attorneys on this recognition! You can see the list of Lewis Brisbois attorneys named to Best Lawyers' 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America here. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement

November 29, 2021 — Patricia B. Santelle & Laura Rossi - White and Williams
On November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine. The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Upholds $68M Jury Award Over 2021 Fatal Fall in Philadelphia

January 28, 2025 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge has reaffirmed a $68.5-million jury verdict in a wrongful death case brought by the wife and child of an immigrant siding-installation worker who fell to his death while working on a small Philadelphia apartment project in late 2021. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record

---

HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals ruled on September 20, 2011 in the case of Arundel Homeowners Association v. Arundel Green Partners, a construction defect case involving a condominium conversion in San Francisco. Eight years after the Notice of Completion was filed, the homeowners association filed a lawsuit alleging a number of construction defects, including “defective cabinets, waterproofing membranes, wall-cladding, plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing (including slope, drainage and flashings), fire-rated ceilings, and chimney flues.” Three years of settlement negotiations followed.

Negotiations ended in the eleventh year with the homeowners association filing a lawsuit. Arundel Green argued that the suit should be thrown out as California’s ten-year statute of limitations had passed. The court granted judgment to Arundel Green.

The homeowners then filed for a new trial and to amend its complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply due to the doctrine of equitable estoppel as Arundel Green’s actions had lead them to believe the issues could be solved without a lawsuit. “The HOA claimed that it was not until after the statute of limitations ran that the HOA realized Arundel Green would not keep its promises; and after this realization, the HOA promptly brought its lawsuit.” The trial court denied the homeowners association’s motions, which the homeowners association appealed.

In reviewing the case, the Appeals Court compared Arundel to an earlier California Supreme Court case, Lantzy. (The homeowners also cited Lantzy as the basis of their appeal.) In Lantzy, the California Supreme Court set up a four-part test as to whether estoppel could be applied. The court applied these tests and found, as was the case in Lantzy, that there were no grounds for estoppel.

In Arundel, the court noted that “there are simply no allegations that Arundel Green made any affirmative statement or promise that would lull the HOA into a reasonable belief that its claims would be resolved without filing a lawsuit.” The court also cited Lesko v. Superior Court which included a recommendation that the plaintiffs “send a stipulation?Ķextending time.” This did not happen and the court upheld the dismissal.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

July 31, 2013 — David McLain, Higgings, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
One of the bright spots in the Colorado construction industry over the last few years has been the construction of for-rent apartments. It seems as though apartments are going up everywhere you look along the Front Range. As market forces change, it will be interesting to see whether these units will remain apartments or whether they will be converted into for-sale condominiums or townhouses. One of the risk management strategies we have recently discussed with our general contractor clients who have been asked to build apartments is to ensure that the project remains a for-rent apartment project through the applicable statute of repose, conservatively assumed to be eight years. Unfortunately this is not always feasible, usually because the owner and/or lender are not interested in encumbering the property for such a long period of time, and want to retain the ability to convert the project if and when market forces allow, even if that is before the running of the statute of repose. The purpose of this article is to discuss the insurance and risk management ramifications of converting a project too early. I have recently heard from several sources in the insurance industry that there are owners and contractors who are currently building apartments with the idea that they will be held as apartments for two to three years and then converted to for-sale condominiums or townhomes. While this strategy may have great appeal from a business point of view, it has a very serious risk management downside. Apparently, these owners and contractors are operating under the mistaken belief that they will have no liability exposure to the ultimate purchasers of the converted units or to the homeowners association for construction defects. This is an incorrect belief. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

March 02, 2020 — Leilani E. Jones - Payne & Fears
This article was originally published for the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ATBL) Report, Volume XX, No. 3, Winter 2018 by attorney Leilani L. Jones. Opting for arbitration requires attorneys to balance efficiency and procedural protections. The implications of arbitration are something clients certainly have to carefully consider both when drafting arbitration provisions, and after initiating a demand. While arbitration can in many respects streamline the civil discovery process, one of the largest roadblocks for cases in California arbitrations is “streamlining” discovery from nonparties. This article explores the challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration, and proposes strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously. Alternative dispute resolution tends to make sense to most businesses implementing preventive measures for future litigation. Clients, lawyers, and judges can generally agree that arbitration is the more “cost-effective” way to resolve disputes, especially in California. While arbitration is theoretically a lowcost option for dispute resolution, almost all parties (particularly the party defending) bristle at climbing expenditures during discovery. This is all despite the perception of more “streamlined” processes in arbitrations. On balance, arbitrators, employing less formal procedures for discovery disputes, can typically cut to the chase faster than a civil judge. Parties often resolve issues via letter brief and telephonic hearing, if necessary, instead of formal noticed motions with accompanying separate statements. The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.’s (“JAMS”) own “Arbitration Discovery Protocols” specifically “ensure that an arbitration will be resolved much less expensively and in much less time than if it had been litigated in court.” Accessed at https:// www.jamsadr.com/arbitration-discovery-protocols. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Leilani E. Jones, Payne & Fears
Ms. Jones may be contacted at llj@paynefears.com

---

Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

November 13, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the need for attorney fee provisions in your construction contracts in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, but thought it merited a restatement of the reasons for the inclusion of such fee provisions (and changing of such provisions when presented) here with the second of my construction contract basics posts. Why would you want such a provision? The answer is that without it, or a statute specifically allowing for such fees, a Virginia court will not award your attorney fees without such a provision. Virginia, and a lot of other states, follow the so-called “American Rule” when it comes to attorney fees and costs. In short, that rule states that the parties to litigation pay their own way unless they agree otherwise. While it may seem unfair to make a successful litigant pay for the privilege of being right, that is the rule in Virginia. Throw in the fact that Virginia courts strictly construe construction contracts and voila we have a situation where without a provision in the contract stating that one party or both will be able to collect attorney fees should that contractor or subcontractor prevail, a construction professional that gets sued (whether rightly or wrongly) will be left with a hefty attorney fees bill and no way to recoup those fees through the courts or any other method. 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

---