CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

February 07, 2022 — Kelly A. Johnson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
*Special thank you to SDV Law Clerk Iliriana Fteja for contributing to this article. A new bill (SB 2022-736) was recently introduced to the Florida Senate. The proposed amendments to the statutes of limitations and repose could significantly impact construction defect claims by effectively creating additional exposure to contractors and insurance carriers. The proposed bill requires all actions founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property to be commenced within four years after the time to commence an action begins. Under the proposed amendment, the time to commence an action runs from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion of the contract or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and their employer. This provision would effectively alter the time to commence an action to whichever triggering event is earliest instead of the latest triggering event per the previous statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com

---

French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

December 09, 2019 — Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The French government’s anti-trust agency has fined the national architects’ registration group and four regional councils $1.64 million (€1.5 million) for price-fixing design fees on public works. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court. The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007. Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.” Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000. Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.” In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty. Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.” However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession. The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

July 18, 2018 — Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters & Geoffrey B. Fehling – Hunton Insurance Recovery Law Blog
A Connecticut court recently denied a motion to compel appraisal of a claim for coverage of a commercial property damage claim, holding that, where the insurance policy at issue provides for appraisal of disputes related to the value or quantum or a loss suffered—not the rights and liabilities of the parties under the policy—appraisal is premature. The decision relied on law that equates insurance appraisal to arbitration and follows a number of decisions holding that parties cannot expand the scope of appraisal clauses to resolve questions of coverage or liability where, as in this case, those issues are not supported by the applicable policy language. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters and Geoffrey B. Fehling Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

July 15, 2019 — Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The normal project and contractual risks faced by contractors, consultants and suppliers to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are considerable. A new law and regulations mandating that the MTA debar contractors, consultants and suppliers for unexcused schedule and cost overruns creates a new and unfair existential risk. The new law, Public Authorities Law Section 1279-h, slipped into the New York State budget bill and passed without public comment, was enacted on April 12, 2019. Implementing regulations were issued on June 5, 2019, and mandate that the MTA debar contractors (defined to include consultants, vendors and suppliers) if they: (1) fail to achieve substantial completion of their contractual obligations within 10% of the adjusted contract time; or (2) present claims for additional compensation that are denied in an amount that exceeds the total adjusted contract amount by 10% or more.[1] To say that your business and your livelihood are at risk is not an overstatement. The MTA umbrella includes the New York City Transit Authority, MTA Capital Construction, Bridges & Tunnels, Long Island Railroad and Metro North, among others. A debarment by one of these authorities will lead to a debarment by all of them, and then to a debarment by all New York State agencies and authorities,[2] and possibly debarment across state lines. Public and major private owners, as part of their RFP and procurement processes, routinely inquire regarding a bidding contractor’s debarment history. The risk is to new contracts and, because the MTA has decided to give retroactive effect to the law and regulations, to contracts that are already ongoing (even though these risks could not have been considered, priced or agreed to by contractors or their sureties). Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

March 22, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code Sections 895 et seq.). The Act, also commonly known as SB 800 after the bill that established it, applies to newly constructed residential units including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003. 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

---

Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

August 24, 2017 — Laura Parsons-CDJ STAFF
An appellate court has ruled that the sponsor and not the condo board is responsible for repairing construction defects at 50 Madison Avenue, a multi-story apartment building in New York City across from Madison Square Park, Habitat reported. Plaintiff’s Simon and Ludmilla Lorne have brought upon three lawsuits in a legal battle lasting a decade. The first came in 2007, two years after the Lorne’s purchased their $3 million seventh-floor apartment. At that time, the sponsor offered to repair the concrete slab under the hardwood floors that had not been properly leveled. However, the Lorne’s and the condo board disagreed about who and how the repairs would be accomplished. The second lawsuit wherein the court ruled that repairing the construction defects was the responsibility of the sponsor occurred in 2009. However, the Lorne’s sued the board yet again in 2015, citing failure to maintain and repair the building. Since the 2015 suit was based on the same allegations as the 2007 suit, it was dismissed by the judge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

August 28, 2023 — Kathryne Baldwin - Wilke Fleury
The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

---