CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A recent case out of New Mexico highlights the importance for subcontractors to review their contract with the general and the contract between the general and the owner. In Centex/Worthgroup, LLC v. Worthgroup Architects, L.P, the architect claimed that the limitation of liability clause in the prime contract trumped the provisions of the subcontract. The court disagreed and ruled that the specific provision in the subcontract controlled. In the case, a general contractor was hired to expand and renovate a resort. The general contractor subcontracted with an architect to design a mechanically stabilized earth wall. The prime contract contained a limitation of liability clause that states:

general contractor shall require its design professional Subcontractor(s) to obtain insurance in an amount not less than $3,000,000. Owner agrees that it will limit general contractor’s liability to Owner for any errors or omissions in the design of the Project to whatever sums Owner is able to collect from the above described professional errors and omissions insurance carrier.

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

---

Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Purchases of new homes in the U.S. jumped in December to the highest level in more than six years, a sign the industry is poised to keep expanding in 2015. Sales increased 11.6 percent to a 481,000 annualized pace, exceeding all estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists and the most since June 2008, figures from the Commerce Department showed Tuesday in Washington. Demand increased in three of four regions. Gains in employment, borrowing costs close to historically low levels and easing credit may prompt more prospective buyers to enter the housing market. The improving outlook is driving up confidence among builders, and companies such as D.R. Horton Inc. and Lennar Corp. project the recovery will be sustained. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

---

New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

September 23, 2019 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

June 22, 2016 — Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – June 21st, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that partner Carol Zaist has been named the firm’s General Counsel. Zaist will report to the Managing Partner, Executive Committee and other senior level management as it relates to the firm’s governance and policy matters. Zaist’s appointment is effectively immediately. “We are excited to have appointed Carol as the firm’s General Counsel,” said Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner. “As we continue to expand across markets, this is another proactive measure to ensure our strategic growth and success.” Zaist is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, concentrating her practice on business litigation, real estate litigation, and probate litigation. She has significant experience advising clients in contract disputes, business and property torts, and trademark and trade secret disputes in both federal and state jurisdictions. Zaist also serves as strategic counsel, advising clients on the impact of multiple litigation matters in different jurisdictions, and integrating strategy and tasks efficiently and cohesively. She will lend this variety of experience to her new role as General Counsel for the firm. “I am honored and thrilled to work with our managing partner and Executive Committee to assist the firm in its strategic growth and development,” said Zaist. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In The Legal Intelligencer, Gordon S. Woodward, partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, analyzed the changing definition of occurrence in the insurance industry, and more specifically in Pennsylvania. Woodward begins by going over “the traditional view of occurrence as it relates to coverage for faulty products or defective work,” in which “the existence of a defect in a product or an event in which a defective product injures only itself does not constitute an occurrence.” However, he stated that “there is a growing trend in favor of finding that an occurrence can include the circumstance where defective work results in damage only to the work or product itself (so long as the damage was neither intended nor expected by the insured).” Woodward also explained Pennsylvania developments and legislative changes (such as a South Carolina statute). These changes need to be monitored, Woodward stated, “as they have the potential to dramatically alter the coverage landscape from one jurisdiction to the next.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

February 15, 2018 — Stella Szantova Giordano – SDV Blog

On December 19, 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak. The decision is significant for two reasons: 1) it clarifies the amount of proof an insurer needs to determine whether an exclusion to coverage applies; and 2) it found that where an insurance policy expressly provides coverage for an intentional act such as false imprisonment, common-law punitive damages are also covered.

Underlying action

The underlying action proves that real life is often stranger than fiction. Ms. S worked as an office help for a construction company owned by Mr. P, which operated out of his home. Ms. S was working alone in the home office, when an armed, masked intruder entered the office, tied her hands, gagged and blindfolded her and, pointing a gun to her head, threatened to kill her family if she did not give him the combination to a safe in the home. As this was happening, Mr. P entered the office, unmasked the intruder, and discovered it was his lifelong friend. After Ms. S was untied, she asked to leave, but Mr. P told her to stay. She was not allowed to leave for several hours as Mr. P made her accompany him to an errand. Ms. S sued Mr. P for false imprisonment, among other things. The trial court awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. Insurance coverage for the underlying judgment is at the heart of the Pasiak case.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Szantova Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

---

Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

December 21, 2016 — Afua S. Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Supreme Court of Florida kicked off December with an opinion that determined which theory of recovery applies when multiple perils combine to create a loss, and at least one of those perils is excluded by the terms of a policy. In Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company, Inc.,1 the court resolved the conflict between the Florida Appellate Courts for the Second District and the Third District and declared the concurrent cause doctrine (CCD) as the more applicable theory of recovery over the efficient proximate cause doctrine (EPC). The underlying dispute concerned damage to a home Sebo purchased in Naples, Florida in April 2005. The American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) insured the home under a manuscript policy specifically created for the property with limits of over eight million dollars. In May 2005, Sebo discovered major water leaks in the main foyer, master bathroom, exercise room, piano room, and living room of the home. In August, paint fell off the walls after it rained, and it became clear that the house suffered from major design and construction defects. When Hurricane Wilma struck in October, the house was further damaged by rain water and high winds, and was eventually demolished. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

---

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

October 07, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---