Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Georgia Update: Automatic Renewals in Consumer Service Contracts

August 31, 2020 — David R. Cook - AHC Blog
Georgia HB 1039 amends O.C.G.A. § 13-12-3 to provide additional protections for consumers who enter into service contracts containing lengthy automatic renewal provisions. Pre-Existing Requirement: For service contracts with an initial term of twelve months or longer and an automatic renewal provision for more than one month, unless the consumer terminates the agreement, sellers must provide written or electronic notification of the automatic renewal provision to the consumer. The notification must be provided to the consumer between 30 and 60 days before the cancellation deadline under such renewal provision. The notice must also “clearly and conspicuously” disclose that unless the consumer cancels, the agreement will automatically renew and disclose how the consumer may obtain details about the automatic renewal provision and cancellation procedure. The process by which a consumer may obtain such information must include the seller’s contact information (e.g., specific phone number or address), reference to the contract, or any other method provided. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

September 03, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Deutsche Bank wants “to void a loan modification it claims resulted in a $125,000 discount on the wrong homeowners' outstanding mortgage,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Furthermore, even though the Deutsche Bank “obtained a default judgment a year ago… a New Jersey federal judge is currently considering the homeowners' motion to vacate it, most recently ordering a hearing to determine whether the couple was properly served.” According to the complaint, the Deutsche Bank claims that “its mortgage servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, mistakenly offered the modification to Lorraine and Raymond Lindsey of Franklinville, N.J., though the terms of the deal were intended for other homeowners in connection with a loan held by a different bank.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

May 16, 2022 — Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
How much time do our clients have to bring a bad faith action against an insurer? Although we are not frequently asked this question, it is one that we constantly analyze before asserting a bad faith claim. To answer this question, we look to the statute of limitations, which is a law passed by a state legislative body that sets the maximum amount of time for a party to bring a claim based upon a particular cause of action. For policyholders, knowing which statute of limitations applies to their bad faith claim is critical because it indicates whether it is possible to initiate legal proceedings. In addition, it determines the amount in damages available in case of a successful resolution. Statute of Limitations in Breach of Contract vs. Tort Claims One key determinant of a statute of limitations for bad faith is whether the claim is brought as a tort or a breach of contract action. The consequence of framing bad faith as a tort is that a policyholder is not just limited to contract damages. The policyholder can also receive recourse for emotional distress, pain, suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other damages that the court may consider appropriate. Unfortunately, however, not every jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring bad faith actions as tort claims. While, for example, courts in California, Colorado, and Connecticut allow bad faith claims sounding in tort, courts in jurisdictions such as Tennessee do not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com

Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

October 21, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin & Laura C. Williams – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of bystander exposure. Plaintiff James Schiffer (“Schiffer”) alleged that while working at the Ginna Gas & Electric power plant in the summer of 1969, he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during installation of equipment and insulation manufactured by CBS Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse. After developing mesothelioma, Schiffer and his wife sued numerous entities, including CBS, which successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Schiffer failed to submit evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials. Reprinted courtesy R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has named Grace V. B. Garcia one of its 2013 Top Women of the Law. She is an attorney at Morrison Mahoney LLP in Boston, and her practice focuses on construction law, product liability, premises liability, commercial litigation, and American with Disability Act cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

September 10, 2018 — William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace. In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.” 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

Two Lawyers From Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group, Andrea DeField and Latosha Ellis, Selected for American Bar Association’s 2022 “On The Rise” Award

August 15, 2022 — Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Partner, Andrea DeField, and counsel, Latosha Ellis, were each recently awarded “On the Rise – Top 40 Young Lawyers” honors by the American Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division. The award honors 40 of the nation’s most promising lawyers under the age of 40 or who have been licensed for 10 years or less. Recipients demonstrate high achievement, innovation, vision, leadership, and service to the profession and their communities, including extensive knowledge in litigation or transactional work and commitment to pro bono, charitable, or professional volunteer work, all while making a lasting impact in their respective fields. More information may be found here. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

December 10, 2015 — Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin & Lawrence S. Zuckerman – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc. (filed 10/23/15; certified for publication 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant haunted attraction operator holding that the risk of a patron being frightened, then running away and falling is inherent in the fundamental nature of a haunted house attraction. The Court further determined there was no evidence the operator acted recklessly or unreasonably increased such risks beyond those inherent in the attraction. In October 2011, Plaintiff attended The Haunted Trail attraction, which featured actors in costumes jumping out holding prop weapons to scare patrons walking along a trail through Balboa Park. The Haunted Trail also employed a scare tactic known as the “Carrie” effect, in which the patrons walk through a fake exit and suddenly a chainsaw wielding actor appears and charges at the patrons for one final jolting scare. It was during this final scene of The Haunted Trail’s “Carrie” effect that Griffin became frightened by an actor brandishing a chainsaw causing him to suddenly run away in fear. As he was fleeing, Griffin fell and injured his wrist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin and Lawrence S. Zuckerman Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES