CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

January 17, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A small building project on Staten Island is causing some big complaints. While many residents of the area are still dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, residents in the Port Richmond neighborhood are concerned about a house that is being built on a lot that at its widest is only seventeen feet. On the other end, the lot is only eleven feet wide. Initially, the Staten Island did not give permission to build on the Orange Avenue lot, but the developer went to the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals who gave permission. The daughter of one neighbor described the foundation as looking “like a swimming pool, not a house.” Her mother’s house has a 40-foot frontage. Another neighbor (37-foot frontage) described the plans to build the narrow house as “pretty stupid.” Work currently stopped on the building over complaints that the site’s fence was incomplete. After the developer repairs the fence, the site needs to be inspected before work continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

#12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his article, “Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered,” attorney Tred R. Eyerly analyzed the Am. Home Assur. Co. case that involved a dispute between a developer and a subcontractor over fractured tiles: “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first found that the fracturing of the stone floor tiles caused by the subcontractor's defective installation was the result of an 'occurrence.' There was no evidence that the subcontractor knew that its tile installation work was defective before the tiles fractured. Instead, the fracturing was an unexpected consequence of the defective installation.” Everly continues, “But there was no ‘property damage.’ For the subcontractor to prevail, the defective installation work had to be considered separate and distinct from the physical manifestation of the defective work. Under California law, coverage resulted from construction defects that involved physical injuries to other parts of the construction project.” Everly concludes, “Because there was no genuine issues of material fact as to the potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Illinois Attorney General has filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that two connected firms took money from homeowners and then failed to perform the contracted work. One of the three defendants, Chris Bidigare, was an owner of agent of both Fairway Construction and Maintenance Services, LLC, and Rock Construction Management, LLC.

In once case, according to the article on the OakPark Patch, one homeowner provided a $111,000 down payment, only to have the company cancel the job and refuse to return the money. One homeowner was told by Fairway that she should contact their insurance provider. The insurance provider told her that Fairway’s insurance had been cancelled due to non-payment.

The suit seeks to bar the three defendants from working in home repair in Illinois.

Read the full story…

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

---

The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

July 10, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been three months since the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S222732 (April 30, 2018) and I’ve had a couple of readers (perhaps my only two) ask whether I was going to write about the decision. I’m not. Well, obviously, that’s not quite true if you’re reading this. Rather, I’ll tell you why I’m writing about not writing about the decision. Dynamex is certainly an important decision and one that will likely be cited for decades to come. In short, Dynamex changed the nearly 30-year old test, first elucidated in S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, for determining whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee. 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

---

There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?

April 23, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
They’re called deadlines for a reason. Usually, because something really bad could happen if you fail to meet the deadline. For those in the construction industry, you probably aware of the “deadline” to bring a claim for latent defects (10 years from substantial completion); the deadline to file suit to foreclose on a mechanics lien (90 days from the date of recording the mechanics lien), and the deadline for serving a preliminary notice (generally, 20 days from the date labor and/or materials are first furnished). Well, here’s another deadline: Under Code of Civil Procedure section 585.310, you have 5 years after a complaint is filed to bring a case to trial, absent the court granting relief. I could leave it at that, but in the next case, Oswald v. Landmark Builders, Inc., 97 Cal.App.5th 240 (2023), was too interesting to pass up. The Oswald Case On June 28, 2016, homeowners Jack Oswald and Anne Seley sued their general contractor and its subcontractors alleging construction defects at their home. Answers and cross-complaints were filed and on February 2017 the trial court determined the case to be complex and appointed a discovery master. A discovery master, for those who may be unfamiliar, is usually a retired judge or third-party lawyer appointed by a court to oversee discovery in a case such as written discovery, depositions, site inspections, etc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

May 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). 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

---

Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

February 15, 2021 — David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

---

Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

January 13, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

---