Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

April 06, 2020 — Brenda Radmacher & Jason Suh - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
“Force Majeure” – While most construction contracts contain these provisions, they are often not understood in relation to the implications they may have on construction projects. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are all taking a closer look at many portions of our contracts. The following is a brief primer on how to understand your construction contract and its potential implications on your business in this season of change. What is a Force Majeure? Construction contracts usually take into consideration that the parties want to agree at the outset on who bears the risk of unforeseen incidents that may affect the project’s progression. These issues are generally handled in a “force majeure” clause. Force majeure, according to Mariam Webster’s Dictionary is a “superior or irresistible force; or an event or effect that cannot be reasonably anticipated or controlled.” To be deemed a force majeure, generally the circumstances must be outside of a party’s control which makes performance impossible, inadvisable, commercially impractical, or illegal. In addition to being unforeseeable, the circumstances must have external causation, and be unavoidable. However, the key to understanding if COVID-19 will be deemed a condition that will excuse a contractor’s performance is the specific language in the provision. Generally force majeure events are unavoidable events such as “acts of God,” most notably weather conditions including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, landslides, and wildfires, as well as certain man-made events like riots, wars, terrorism, explosions, labor strikes, and scarcity of energy supplies. However, there is not much case law or specifics on conditions similar to COVID-19. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees and Jason Suh, Gordon & Rees Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Suh may be contacted at jwsuh@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

January 04, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For the roadway contractor it appeared to be an open and shut case: Plaintiff car driver was stopped at a standard one-way “reversing lane closure” traffic control in which traffic going in one direction would be stopped while traffic going in the other direction was allowed to proceed, and then the procedure would be reversed. Plaintiff, while stopped at the traffic control, was rear-ended by another vehicle driven by George Smithson. Smithson testified that he “must have looked off to the side” at some point prior to the collision because he did not see plaintiff’s vehicle before hitting it. He also testified that the primary reason the accident happened was that he was not paying attention and that he knew of no other cause of the accident. For the roadway contractor you couldn’t ask for a better admission. And it ended in the trial court just the way you thought it would, with a win for the roadway contractor. That is, until it was appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

August 26, 2015 — James Nash – Bloomberg
Los Angeles’s dreams of hosting the Olympic Games for a third time could get a boost from the City Council this week, even as officials try to assure taxpayers that they won’t be forced to bail out a botched effort. The council is expected to vote Wednesday on giving Mayor Eric Garcetti power to negotiate with the U.S. Olympic Committee to bring the 2024 games to Los Angeles and require the city to pay for cost overruns. Los Angeles emerged as the U.S. contender for the games after Boston withdrew from consideration in July. Opponents there warned that taxpayers were on the hook if the nearly month-long sporting event lost money. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg

Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

December 15, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Addressing a host of issues on appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against the insurer for property damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Henriquez, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11391 (Tex. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016), withdrawn and substituted by 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12766 (Tex. Ct. app. Dec. 1, 2016). The insureds alleged property damage to their home caused by the hurricane. The roof was damaged, resulting in interior water damage. Sheetrock, exterior bricks, windows, walls cabinets and insulation throughout the entire home were damaged. The insureds also alleged that the home shifted during the storm, causing the foundation to not be level and the ceilings and walls to crack. Personal property within the dwelling was also damaged. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

May 26, 2019 — White and Williams LLP

Fifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.

Super Lawyers 2019
Attorney	Practice Area
John Balaguer	PI Defense: Med Mal
Kevin Cottone	PI Defense: Med Mal
Thomas Goutman	Class Action
David Haase	Business Litigation
Christopher Leise	Civil Litigation: Defense
Randy Maniloff	Insurance Coverage
David Marion	Business Litigation
Peter Mooney	Business Litigation
Michael Olsan	Insurance Coverage
John Orlando	General Litigation
Wesley Payne	Insurance Coverage
Daryn Rush	Insurance Coverage
Anthony Salvino	Workers’ Comp
Patricia Santelle	Insurance Coverage
Andrew Susko	Civil Litigation: Defense

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

COVID-19 Response: Recent Executive Orders Present Opportunities for Businesses Seeking Regulatory and Enforcement Relief and Expedited Project Development

June 15, 2020 — Karen C. Bennett, Jane C. Luxton & Amanda L. Tharpe - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (June 8, 2020) - Two recent Executive Orders (EO) aimed at promoting economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis offer regulatory and enforcement relief and encourage agencies to expedite infrastructure project approvals. The May 19, 2020 EO 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” directs agencies to determine whether previous regulatory reforms would promote economic recovery if made permanent and encourages compliance assistance through exercising enforcement discretion, including declining enforcement. And the June 4, 2020 EO 13927, “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities,” aims to speed up the permitting process for infrastructure projects to strengthen the national economy. As businesses look to move forward and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, they should closely review these EOs for opportunities to take advantage of streamlined treatment and faster project approvals. EO 13294 supplements the Administration’s efforts to address the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging federal agencies to rescind, modify, waive, or provide exemptions from federal regulations that may inhibit economic recovery and to provide guidance to businesses, particularly small businesses, on what is required of them under federal law for reopening. Specifically, the EO directs agency heads to identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery and consider rescinding or waiving those regulations, exempting regulated entities from compliance, exercising enforcement discretion, or extending regulatory compliance and enforcement deadlines. It also allows for compliance assistance through accelerated regulatory procedures to receive a pre-enforcement ruling and directs agencies to assess previous regulatory reforms to determine whether making them permanent would promote economic recovery. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has made regulatory reform a cornerstone of its agenda. This Executive Order is a continuation of the aggressive steps taken by the Administration to reduce the regulatory burden faced by American businesses that many argue increases operating costs, inhibits job creation, and stifles economic growth. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Karen C. Bennett, Jane C. Luxton and Amanda L. Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Tharpe may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

September 05, 2022 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
[1]Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini, entered into a $1.4 billion contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to replace the Highway 99 viaduct. In December 2013, a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”) bearing the moniker “Bertha,” then the largest TBM ever built, measuring 425 feet long and 57 feet in diameter, struck an underground pipe. Shortly after the impact, Bertha overheated and eventually could no longer make forward progress. A massive repair effort ensued causing a 2.5-year delay in reaching substantial completion. WSDOT sued STP for the delay, seeking liquidated damages of $57 million. In response, STP argued its delay was excusable because it was caused by Bertha’s impact with the pipe, and the steel well casing was a Differing Site Condition (DSC) undisclosed in the contract documents. STP asserted counterclaims against WSDOT, alleging breach of contract and seeking $300 million in damages. Ultimately, a jury found that the steel well casing on the pipe was not a DSC, foreclosing STP’s excusable delay defense and counterclaims, and resulting in a $57 million verdict, plus interest, in favor of WSDOT. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES