Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

March 19, 2015 — Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Blackstone Group LP agreed to buy Chicago’s Willis Tower, the second-tallest building in the U.S., and plans to upgrade the retail and observatory space in a bet on growth in the city. The price was $1.3 billion, a record for a Chicago office building, according to Blackstone executives. The sellers of the 110-story skyscraper, formerly known as Sears Tower, are a group including New York-based investors Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and American Landmark Properties Ltd. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
Ms. Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

March 18, 2019 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building. West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm. Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

January 03, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, I’ve been on an “advising” kick here at Construction Law Musings. My last two posts have been about communication and trusting your gut when it comes to a smooth construction project. This post will be the third in the trilogy (and who knows maybe I’ll have a 4th and 5th like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy “trilogy”). While all construction contractors should use their communication skills and instincts to assure a smooth and hopefully profitable project, all of the gut following and great communication will not help you if your contract is not up to snuff. In the spirit of giving you a few basics things to look at, here’s my list of three basics that you need in your contract and a three things to be on the lookout for in others’ contracts. First, the good stuff that needs to be there:

Attorney Fees Clause– without it, a Virginia court (and most other courts) will not award you a judgment for any attorney fees spent to protect your rights.
Dispute Resolution– whether the specified resolution is through the litigation process, ADR or some combination, such a clause or paragraph will only help define the parameters of what happens with a claim.
Detailed scope of work– Without the proper detail in the scope of work, the parties cannot properly set expectations and know what happens when things change.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

October 11, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
The Washington State Court of Appeals recently addressed an excavation contractor’s responsibilities under the Underground Utilities Damage Prevention Act (UUDPA), RCW 19.122. That statute was enacted in 2011 and imposed certain statutory duties on parties involved with projects requiring excavation. In this case, Titan Earthworks, LLC contracted with the City of Federal Way to perform certain street improvements including installation of a new traffic signal. During the process of excavating for the traffic signal, Titan drilled into an energized underground Puget Sound Energy power line. PSE sought damages from Titan and Titan sued the City of Federal Way. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier

April 11, 2022 — Robert M. Barrack - Gordon & Rees
In United Concrete Prods. v. NJR Constr., LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551, 263 A.3d 823 (2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court has issued a decision that should be of interest to the Connecticut construction industry and the construction bar. The lawsuit arose out of the late delivery of materials on a construction project, which is a frequent problem on construction projects. In United Concrete Products, the defendant general contractor, NJR Construction, LLC (“NJR”) was retained by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to replace a bridge over the Hockanum River (“Project”). Id. at 555-58 (2021). The Prime Contract provided that NJR with an eight-week time-frame to perform the work, at which time the road would be closed to traffic. Id. The Prime Contract also provided for a bonus of $3,000 for each day the road was opened to traffic prior to the eight week deadline of August 8, 2016, and for liquidated damages of $3,000 for each day the road remained closed beyond the deadline. Id. NJR subsequently entered into a purchase order (“Subcontract”) with the plaintiff, United Concrete Products, Inc. (“United”), whereby United agreed to provide certain concrete components for the Project, including ten pre-stressed concrete beams. Id. The Subcontract required that United deliver the concrete beams by June 7, 2016, but, NJR did not actually schedule the delivery until June 29, 2016. Id. Nevertheless, even with that schedule NJR could have reopened the road by July 19, 2016, which would have allowed it to receive the full $60,000 incentive bonus. However, United did not deliver the concrete beams until July 26, 2016, which caused NJR to lose the incentive bonus, be assessed liquidated damages by the DOT, and to incur additional delay damages. Id. After deducting the amount of $179,500 in damages that it incurred due to United’s late delivery of the beams, NJR paid United the balance of $66,074.75. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Barrack, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Mr. Barrack may be contacted at rbarrack@grsm.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES