Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

FEMA Offers Recovery Tips for California Wildfire Survivors

January 14, 2025 — FEMA
WASHINGTON -- While fire suppression activities are still ongoing in parts of Southern California, affected individuals and families are taking steps toward recovery. FEMA is helping people jumpstart their recovery. You may be eligible for FEMA assistance, even if you have insurance. More than $5.3 million so far are in the hands of survivors to help pay for emergency supplies like food, water and baby formula as well as to replace personal property and pay for a temporary place to stay. Below are tips to help Californians recover from the historic wildfires. If your primary home was affected by the fires, FEMA may be able to help you cover certain costs – like paying for essential items, finding a place to stay, replacing personal property or making basic repairs to your home. However, FEMA assistance is designed to help you if you do not have insurance or if your insurance policies don't cover basic needs. If you have insurance, you should file a claim as soon as possible and be ready to provide your coverage information when applying to FEMA. There are several ways to apply for FEMA assistance:

Online at DisasterAssistance.gov and in Spanish language at DisasterAssistance.gov/es.
Calling the FEMA Helpline at 1-800-621-3362 for assistance in multiple languages.
On the FEMA App for mobile devices.

To view an accessible video about how to apply visit: FEMA Accessible: Registering for Individual Assistance or en Español. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

December 15, 2016 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
A development site slated for an almost 1,000-foot condo tower on Manhattan’s far east side found a new owner through a bankruptcy auction Tuesday, removing a hurdle for construction after about a year of delays. Gamma Real Estate, the lender to the project, won the auction with a credit bid of $86 million and is poised to take control of the site, pending approval from the bankruptcy court, said David Schechtman, a broker with Meridian Investment Sales, which handled the auction with another brokerage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Mr. Carmiel can be followed on Twitter @OshratCarmiel

Connecticut Reverses Course for Construction Managers on School Projects

August 05, 2024 — Anand Gupta - Construction Law Zone Blog
On June 6, 2024, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 24-151 (H.B. 5524) (Bill 5524). Bill 5524 authorized and adjusted bonds of the state and provisions related to state and municipal tax administration, as well as addressed school building projects. Notably, Bill 5524 removed the ban on construction managers self-performing work on public school construction projects, effective July 1, 2024. Allowing construction managers to self-perform certain portions of the work, such as general trades, subject to the standard bidding requirements, is a common industry practice that, theoretically, reduces total project costs by reducing the amount of subcontracted work. However, proponents of banning self-performance argue that construction managers have too much information to bid fairly and competitively. Reprinted courtesy of Anand Gupta, Robinson+Cole Mr. Gupta may be contacted at agupta@rc.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Wisconsin couple that leased then bought a home cannot sue the couple that built the home for construction defects. The court rejected the claims made by Niksa and Kelly Ivancevic that the sellers, Ronald and Debra Reagan, had breached contract or that the contract represented a mutual mistake. The Ivancevics initially leased the home, with an agreement that said the house would be “delivered in clean condition and good repair, free of mold and toxic substances, suitable for habitation in compliance with all laws.” Before the purchase, no defects were found. After the purchase, the Ivancevics had problems with the air conditioning, leading to water leaks on the second floor. The court found that the actual sales contract did not guarantee a defect-free residence. Therefore the Ivancevic’s claim of a mutual mistake, in which “both parties of a contact are unaware of the existence of a past or present fact material to their agreement” did not apply, since the presence of construction defects was not “material to their agreement.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

June 21, 2021 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.” 5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

October 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013). The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend. The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Mitigate Construction Risk Through Use of Contingency

April 26, 2021 — Laurie A. Stanziale - Construction Executive
Mitigation of risk and costs in a construction project are always priorities for owners. In some contracts, in particular, Guaranteed Maximum Price contracts, some of those monetary risks are shifted to the contractor. Contingency is important because it allows for money to be in the budget for the unexpected and to keep the project moving, which benefits everyone. WHAT IS CONTINGENCY? Contingency is an amount of money built into the contractor’s price to complete the project to address unforeseen (although sometimes very common) costs that arise. This sum of money is generally referred to as the contractor’s contingency. The amount of the contingency is a balance struck between having money on hand to address the unexpected while also not unnecessarily tying up money that could otherwise be used for the project. Contingency is typically 5-10% of the hard costs. However, how the money is actually allocated during the project is not always well thought out, which can be the source of problems during the project. The contractor’s contingency is not to be confused with an owner’s contingency (or reserve) which is outside of the contractor’s budget and generally used for owner driven changes to the project, such as changes to scope, design and schedule. Reprinted courtesy of Laurie A. Stanziale, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that if it is possible that damage could have occurred prior to the completion of the project, then the policies in effect at that time are triggered. John Green of Farella Braun + Martel LLP writes that “we have long argued that, since the duty to defend exists if there is any ‘potential’ of covered liability, there is a potential that damage happened before that project was completed, or at any time after completion, triggering all policies in that time frame.” The Oregon court concluded that if property damage could have happened during construction, the insuerer had a duty to defend and “the insured had no burden to establish any additional facts to support that potential.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES