Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

June 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
You can feel the buzz here in the Bay Area as the Golden State Warriors enter Game 4 of the NBA Playoffs following a 35 point upset over the Houston Rockets on Saturday, and a chance tonight to sweep the series and head to the NBA Finals for the first time since 1975. Formerly the Philadelphia Warriors from 1946 to 1962, and later the San Francisco Warriors from 1962 to 1971, the Golden State Warriors have played in Oakland’s currently named Oracle Arena since 1966 (except for one year when they played in San Jose while the Oracle Arena was being remodeled). Starting next year, however, construction will begin on the Warriors’ new stadium in the Mission Bay area of San Francisco with completion scheduled for the 2018-2019 season. Although details are just emerging – and even the conceptual plans have changed after some said that the initial design looked like a toilet – here’s the 411 we know on the new 415 location of the Warriors:

The cost of the new arena is estimated to be $1 billion.

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

Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. 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

Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

August 06, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

October 18, 2021 — Steven A. Neeley - Construction Executive
In today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year. Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons. Reprinted courtesy of Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com

Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

April 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Courthouse Square in Marion County, Oregon is due to reopen after four years and nearly $23 million of repair costs to fix structural defects, according to the Statesman Journal. The square includes a courthouse building and bus mall, and is jointly owned by the county and transit district. Two years after the Courthouse Square had been built, cracks were observed “in the building’s walls” and “paving stones on the bus mall shifted and settled.” A construction defect suit was filed in 2006. However, the situation worsened in July of 2010 when “engineers determined that the entire complex was dangerous,” according to the Statesman Journal. “Building safety officials gave Courthouse Square’s occupants 60 days to move out, forcing county and transit district operations into temporary leased space.” Now that the structural repairs have been completed, Dave Clark, project manager with Structural Preservation Systems LLC (the company awarded the repair contract), stated that the building’s structure is now stronger than most buildings. “If there’s an earthquake, come to this building,” Clark said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

April 19, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A worker on a data center project for Facebook parent company Meta in Utah was fired after admitting to tying a noose at the worksite where racist graffiti had also been found months earlier. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

November 27, 2023 — Jarred Trauth - ConsensusDocs
Risks are inherent in every construction project and all parties involved face them: owners, designers, general contractors/builders, subcontractors, suppliers…. Equitably allocating such risks is one of the most important and most negotiated areas of any construction related contract. Limitations of liability provisions are key to risk allocation. These provisions include no damage for delay provisions and caps on delay damages, warranty limitations and exclusions, indemnity limitations, and consequential damage waivers. Another, and the focus of this article, is a liability cap fixing the total amount of damages for which a party may be liable under the contract (the “Liability Cap”). Liability Caps have become more and more common in construction and construction related contracts, including major component supply agreements and design agreements. This article will discuss Liability Caps generally and considerations of an owner or contractor negotiating them, including carve-outs (i.e. exceptions) to them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jarred Trauth, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Trauth may be contacted at jtrauth@joneswalker.com

Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor Obtain Summary Judgment For Insurance Carrier Client in Missouri Federal Court Coverage Action

April 19, 2022 — Dana A. Rice & Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Jason Taylor were recently successful in obtaining summary judgment for a national insurance carrier client in a federal court declaratory judgment action pending in Missouri. The underlying lawsuit involved two wrongful death actions brought against an insured responsible for performing demolition work on a freight elevator shaft as part of a larger demolition project. The two decedents were operating a motorized wire rope pulley inside the shaft when the system failed, causing the work basket occupied by the decedents to fall and resulting in fatal injuries to the workers. Two state court actions followed against the general contractor on the project, the insured, and various other product suppliers and manufacturers of the freight elevator equipment. The firm’s client issued commercial general liability insurance policy, which included an “Injury to Employees, Contractors, Volunteers and Other Workers” exclusion that precluded coverage for bodily injury to a broad variety of workers. As respects the insured, the underlying plaintiffs alleged that the decedent-workers were “employed by” the insured, such that the carrier argued the “Injury to Workers” exclusion barred coverage. The carrier filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking a declaration that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for the underlying state court actions under the exclusion, and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The carrier also claimed a related “Contractors and Subcontractors” exclusion barred coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Dana A. Rice, Traub Lieberman and Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rice may be contacted at drice@tlsslaw.com Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES