Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

June 02, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

April 01, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
On March 2, 2015, Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, spoke to a packed house at the Wendel Rosen Construction Practice Group’s Infrastructure Forum on the Commission’s plans for nearly $8 billion in transportation improvement funding approved by voters this past year under Measure BB. The Alameda County Transportation Commission The Commission, which was formed in 2010 following the merger of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, serves as the congestion management agency for the County of Alameda and is responsible for planning, funding and delivering transportation programs and projects throughout the county. 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

The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

October 23, 2012 — David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

Gene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.

In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.

Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

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

Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property

August 02, 2017 — Omar Parra & Jesse M. Sullivan - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed California’s latent defect statute of limitations, codified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, bars only claims based on construction defects. Estuary Owners Association v. Shell Oil Company, No. A145516, (Cal. Ct. App. July 26, 2017). The Court also reemphasized that under California’s three-year statute of limitations for damage to real property, delineated in California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(b), the actual and constructive knowledge of the prior landowner is imputed to the current landowner. Estuary Owners Association concerned the development and construction of a 100-unit condominium by Signature at the Estuary, LLC (“Signature”) on land Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) previously used as a fuel distribution terminal. Construction of the condominiums was completed in 2006. In 2008, it was discovered that residual concentrations of petroleum related chemicals remained in the soil, soil gas, and groundwater beneath the development. Later that year, Signature revealed that the condominiums had been constructed with moisture barriers beneath the building slabs instead of the vapor/gas barriers called for in the corrective action plan. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss

May 08, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting New Jersey law, the federal district court dismissed without prejudice the law firm's complaint against its insurer and agent. Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31844 (D. N. J. Feb. 27, 2023). The law firm had a professional liability policy issued by Hanover. The law firm was sued in the underlying case involving a real estate transaction. The law firm tendered the defense and indemnity of the underlying complaint, but coverage was denied. The law firm sued, contending Hanover breached the policy by refusing to abide by its obligations under the policy. In the alternative, the law firm alleged that its agent, USI Insurance Services, LLC, was liable if the policy did not require Hanover to defend and indemnify in the underlying case. It was further alleged that USI was responsible for procuring coverage for the law firm and knew of its insurance needs. USI was negligent in securing a policy with inadequate coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Court of Appeals Rules that HOA Lien is not Spurious, Despite Claim that Annexation was Invalid

March 27, 2019 — Jesse Howard Witt - The Witt Law Firm
Today, the Colorado Court of appeals reversed a order that had deemed a homeowner association’s lien to be spurious. The case arose after a developer approved a property owner’s application to annex additional real estate to a community in 1999. Several years later, the developer repurchased the property through a foreclosure sale. Despite its prior approval of the annexation, the developer refused to pay community maintenance assessments, which prompted the association to record a lien under its covenants and a statutory provision of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). The parties remained in a standoff until 2016, when the Colorado Supreme Court announced two decisions that adopted a stricter standard for annexing property into communities subject to CCIOA. Relying on this new authority, the developer at Stroh Ranch argued that the 1999 annexation was no longer valid. The district court agreed and declared the association’s lien to be spurious. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

December 10, 2015 — Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin & Lawrence S. Zuckerman – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc. (filed 10/23/15; certified for publication 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant haunted attraction operator holding that the risk of a patron being frightened, then running away and falling is inherent in the fundamental nature of a haunted house attraction. The Court further determined there was no evidence the operator acted recklessly or unreasonably increased such risks beyond those inherent in the attraction. In October 2011, Plaintiff attended The Haunted Trail attraction, which featured actors in costumes jumping out holding prop weapons to scare patrons walking along a trail through Balboa Park. The Haunted Trail also employed a scare tactic known as the “Carrie” effect, in which the patrons walk through a fake exit and suddenly a chainsaw wielding actor appears and charges at the patrons for one final jolting scare. It was during this final scene of The Haunted Trail’s “Carrie” effect that Griffin became frightened by an actor brandishing a chainsaw causing him to suddenly run away in fear. As he was fleeing, Griffin fell and injured his wrist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin and Lawrence S. Zuckerman Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

February 07, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates

One of the most important provisions in construction contracts is the indemnification provision. Appreciating contractual indemnification obligations are critical and certainly should not be overlooked. Ever!

Florida Statute s. 725.06 (written about here and here) contains a limitation on contractual indemnification provisions for personal injury or property damage in construction contracts. There should always be an indemnification provision in a construction contract that addresses property damage or personal injury. Always!

Section 725.06 pertains to agreements in connection with “any construction, alteration, repair, or demolition of a building, structure, appurtenance, or appliance, including moving and excavating associated therewith…” If the contract requires the indemnitor (party giving the indemnification) to indemnify the indemnitee (party receiving the indemnification) for the indemnitee’s own negligence, the indemnification provision is unenforceable unless it contains a “monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification that bears a reasonable commercial relationship to the contract and is part of the project specifications or bid documents, if any.” It is important to read the statute when preparing and dealing with a contractual indemnification provision.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES