CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

August 13, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A subcontractor or supplier not in direct contract with an owner must serve a Notice to Owner within 45 days of initial furnishing to preserve construction lien rights. Of course, the notice of commencement should be reviewed to determine whether the subcontractor or supplier has construction lien or payment bond rights so that it knows how to best proceed in the event of nonpayment. Serving a Notice to Owner should be done as a matter of course — a standard business operation; no exceptions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

January 16, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit denied an underground contractor’s claim under what appears to be a commercial property installation floater policy (inland marine coverage) that covers the contractor’s materials. Whereas a builder’s risk policy is more expansive, an installation floater is narrower and can provide protection to a contractor for materials and equipment in transit, stored, or being installed subject to the terms of the installation floater policy. It can provide coverage to a trade subcontractor for materials that aren’t covered by builder’s risk. In Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Talcon Group, LLC, 2023 WL 8798053 (11th Cir. 2023), an underground utility contractor that had a general contractor’s license had an installation policy that provided coverage “only for underground utility operations and the site development work tied to those operations.” Talcon Group, supra, at *1. The utility contractor was constructing two residential homes that was on land owned by an affiliated family entity. During construction of the residential homes, a wildfire destroyed the homes prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. The utility contractor submitted a notice of loss to its insurance carrier that provided the installation policy. The carrier denied the claim because the construction of the homes was NOT the same type of work as the installation of underground utilities which was covered. An insurance coverage lawsuit ensued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

March 13, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California has a number of prompt payment penalty statutes on the books. Among them is Civil Code section 8800 which requires project owners on private works projects to pay progress payments to direct contractors within 30 days after demand for payment pursuant to contract or be subject to prompt payment penalties of two percent (2%) per month on the amount wrongfully withheld. Like California’s other prompt payment penalty statutes, however, there is an important carve out: If there is a good faith dispute between the project owner and the direct contractor the project owner may withhold up to 150% of the dispute amount and not be subject to prompt payment penalties. And that, my friends, is a higher-tiered party’s “get out of jail free” card. In a case of first impression, the 1st District Court of Appeals, in Vought Construction Inc. v. Stock (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 622, examined whether a project owner’s claim for liquidated damages constitutes a good faith dispute under Civil Code section 8800. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

November 28, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

November 26, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Stephens & Stephens XII v. Fireman's Fund Ins. (No. A135938, filed November 24, 2014), the plaintiffs obtained property insurance on a warehouse. Within a month, it was discovered to be stripped of all wiring and metal. Fireman's Fund paid for emergency repairs but nothing more, concerned that the damage had occurred outside the policy period. The policy provided for valuation of either "replacement cost," meaning the expenditure required to replace the damaged property with "new property of comparable material and quality," or "actual cash value," defined as the actual, depreciated value of the damaged property. For replacement cost, Fireman’s Fund was not required to pay "until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired ... as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage," and only "[t]he amount [the insured] actually spend[s]...." In the subsequent bad faith lawsuit, the jury awarded the full cost of repair, despite there being no repairs. The appeals court reversed, holding that there was no right to an immediate award for the costs of repairing the damage; however, the court nonetheless held that the insured was entitled to a "conditional judgment," awarding those costs if repairs were actually made. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing its prior decision, the New York Court of Appeals held that the insurer could raise policy exclusions regarding its duty to indemnify after it incorrectly denied its duty to defend. K2 Invest. Group, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 201 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2014). The insured was sued for legal malpractice. His insurer, American Guarantee, refused to defend and a default judgment was entered. The insured assigned his rights against American Guarantee to the plaintiffs. When the underlying plaintiffs sued, American Guarantee said coverage was barred by two exclusions. In a previous decision, K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. Am Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 21 NY 3d 284, the court held that American Guarantee's breach of its duty to defend prevented it from relying on policy exclusions. This, however, contradicted another case issued by the court, Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y 2d 419 (1985). 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

---

DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

December 17, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I know. You’re busy. Perhaps even a bit overwhelmed. You’ve got trees to trim, halls to deck with boughs of holly, and when you throw in (the office, your kids’ school, and the bowling league’s) holiday parties, you’re at the point where you’ve got visions of sugar plums (although it may vary) dancing through your head. Well, the DIR has come to give you its own yuletide greeting. Think of it as a Christmas card of sorts. Merry Christmas. The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) announced today that a mandatory renewal deadline is approaching for contractors who bid or work on public works projects in California. Contractors whose public works contractor registration expired June 30, 2015, and have ongoing public works projects or plan to bid on new ones, must pay the $300 renewal fee before January 1, 2016 or face an additional $2,000 late penalty after that date. 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

---

Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

November 21, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
In a good, recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Americabe-Moriarity, JV, 2018 WL 5306683 (11th Cir. 2018), held that Florida Statute s. 57.105(7) cannot be used to shift attorney’s fees in a contractual indemnification clause in a dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor’s performance bond surety, when the dispute does not involve an actual indemnification claim stemming from a third-party. In this case, a prime contractor terminated a subcontractor and looked to the subcontractor’s performance bond surety to pay for the completion work. The subcontractor had a standard AIA A312 performance bond that requires the prime contractor to comply with the terms of the bond, as well as the incorporated subcontract, in order to trigger the surety’s obligations under the bond. The surety filed an action for declaratory relief against the prime contractor arguing that the prime contractor breached the terms of the performance bond through non-compliance thereby discharging the surety’s obligations. The trial court agreed and the surety moved for attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---