Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

December 19, 2018 — Eydie Cubarrubia - Engineering News-Record
Worker safety concerns sparked a new plan on how to demolish the remnants of the old Tappan Zee Bridge in New York. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eydie Cubarrubia, ENR
Ms. Cubarrubia may be contacted at cubarrubiae@enr.com

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. 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

Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

October 17, 2023 — David Voreacos - Bloomberg
A real estate developer was convicted for promoting $1.3 billion in fraudulent tax deductions after a judge removed a deliberating juror who told the judge she was “standing up for White people.” Jack Fisher was found guilty Friday in Atlanta federal court of selling tax deductions to wealthy individuals using so-called syndicated conservation easements, which offer tax breaks for the promise to avoid developing land. Prosecutors said Fisher relied on exaggerated appraisals and backdated documents in the scheme, which earned him tens of millions of dollars. Jurors also convicted a lawyer who worked with Fisher, James Sinnott. Attorneys for Fisher and Sinnott didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The nine-week trial nearly came undone by conflicts over race and class within the jury, which began deliberating on Sept. 14. Last week, jurors told US District Judge Timothy Batten they were “hopelessly hung.” Jurors also complained that Juror 26, a White woman, refused to deliberate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Voreacos, Bloomberg

Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

January 08, 2019 — Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger, & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Second Circuit recently confirmed in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co. that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation, which ripened into a “Claim” prior to the policy’s inception date. The opinion left intact the lower court’s finding that the SEC subpoena constituted a “demand for non-monetary relief” and thus qualified as a “Claim” under the directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger and Joshua S. Paster Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

July 25, 2022 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, but the ruling was more limited than some environmental advocates had feared. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

March 22, 2018 — William S. Bennett – SDV Blog
The California Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over whether an insurer is required to cover allegations that a builder negligently failed to supervise an employee who sexually assaulted a middle school student while working at the student’s school. The question was originally certified to the California Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit in 2016, but nothing happened until the court heard arguments on March 6, 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

October 22, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Proponents of California’s high-speed rail project cleared a major hurdle this past week when the California Supreme Court declined to review a California Court of Appeals ruling which held that the state’s funding plan did not violate Proposition 1A, the voter-approved initiative passed in 2008, which provided initial funding for the project. For those like me who have been following the fits and starts of California’s high-speed rail project, it may be hard to remember how it all got started, and how we got to where we are. California's High-Speed Rail Project California’s high-speed rail project involves the construction of a high-speed passenger rail system running from Northern California to Southern California. The $68 billion system, expected to begin operation in 2029, will initially run from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under 3 hours with train speeds capable of over 200 miles per hour. The system will eventually extend from Sacramento to San Diego covering a distance of approximately 800 miles with up to 24 stations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

August 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued some very significant rulings regarding the construction of new natural gas pipelines. These cases are Berkley, et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, decided July 25; Sierra Club, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, The Wilderness Society, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, and Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided July 27, 2018; and Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided August 6, 2018. The first two cases involve the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and the last case involves the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES