Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

February 27, 2019 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario
In Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
On one hand, your walls are about nine inches thick. On the other hand, your heating and cooling costs are nonexistent. Greenhill Contracting is building “zero-net energy” homes in New Paltz, New York. The homes are designed to create more power than they consume. In addition to the walls, which WDTN News describes as “castle thick,” the homes include solar panels, triple-glazed windows, and geothermal heating and cooling systems. The cost for a three-bedroom home in this development starts at about $400,000. Meritage Homes is offering net-zero as an option on its homes. Based in Arizona, Meritage builds homes across the country. Another national builder, Shea Homes, calls its net-zero option “SheaXero,” and has built about a thousand in four western states and in Florida. One Arizona homeowner notes that she runs her air conditioner constantly, but “I still have never paid more than $18 and some change.” Sometimes she even gets a credit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Norristown, Pennsylvania has already paid “$3.4 million for construction repairs and legal expenses” for the 26-unit condominium on 770 Sandy Street, according to The Times Herald. Therefore city officials recently declared that “they will no longer pay the $40,000 annual cost for maintenance, electricity and repairs” for the building. “At some point, the folks that own it have to step up and take responsibility for it,” Norristown Council President William Caldwell told The Times Herald. “No later than February 28, the municipality will cease to provide or pay for maintenance of 770 Sandy Street.” Previously, Norristown had received court orders to repair the building, after numerous construction defects turned up including “missing firestops in numerous walls, missing grout and steel rebar in block-wall, emergency stair towers, faulty electrical wiring and no provision for firestopping in the first-floor garage ceiling.” City officials “were faulted by Montgomery County Common Pleas Court judges for not properly inspecting the construction.” Charles Madracchia, past Customers Bank attorney and current Homeowner attorney, is “continuing active litigation in both federal and state court.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

November 30, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. In Prav Lodging, the facts were a bit unusual. The day after the mechanic’s lien was recorded by Synchronized Construction Services, Inc. (“Synchronized”) the construction manager, Paris Development Group, the construction manager and de facto general contractor, went out of business. Despite this fact, and after the lien was bonded off, Synchronized sued to enforce the lien and for breach of contract against Paris. The wrinkle here is that Synchronized was unable to serve several defendants, among them Paris, within one year of filing suit as required by Virginia statute. In the Circuit Court, the financing bank moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve necessary parties. The Circuit Court dismissed the breach of contract count but refused to dismiss the mechanic’s lien count on this basis. 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

Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME

October 02, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Two weeks ago we wrote about a disgorgement case winding its way through the courts where a contractor who let its license lapse after assigning its contract to a related but properly licensed entity was still facing disgorgement of the entire contract amount. Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393.) Now another disgorgement case, Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera (Ct. of Appeal, 2nd App. District, Div. 2, B258563), shows the risk of not having a genuine RMO/RME. The consequences of disgorgement are potentially devastating and would certainly cause some contractors to go belly-up. The good news for the contractor in this particular case is that the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The bad news for the contractor is that damaging facts were revealed during the process of the court trial that will make a victory very difficult to pull off. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorney Todd W. Blischke has become a member of Seattle, Washington’s Williams Kastner law firm, according to Herald Online. Blishcke, who “has experience representing contractors, sureties, real estate developers, public agencies and private owners” will “chair the firm’s Construction Litigation and Surety Practices Team.” “Todd is an excellent addition to the firm’s Seattle office, and we are thrilled to have him on board,” said Jessie Harris, Managing Director of Williams Kastner, as quoted by Herald Online. “His years of experience in construction and surety matters will be an asset to Williams Kastner’s established construction litigation practice.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

November 30, 2017 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is extending again—this time, by two weeks—the compliance date for its rule requiring companies to file annual electronic reports of workplace injuries and illnesses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

August 06, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES