Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

July 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender & Amy L. Pierce - Gravel2Gavel
Unlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.

On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule. The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.

Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

May 16, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In prior postings, I have discussed the all-powerful General Agreement of Indemnity (click here and here). This is the document a bond-principal executes to obtain bonds (e.g., performance and payment bonds). Not only does the bond-principal execute this General Agreement of Indemnity, but typically, so do other indemnitors such as the company’s principals and their spouses, other related companies, etc. The objective is that the surety has financial comfort that if a claim is made against the bond, there are avenues where it will get reimbursed and indemnified for any cost it incurs, or payment it makes, relative to that claim against the bond. When a surety issues bonds, the objective is that all losses it incurs gets reimbursed because the bonds are NOT insurance policies. One of the powerful tools the surety can exercise in the General Agreement of Indemnity is to demand the bond-principal and other indemnitors to post collateral in an amount the surety deems sufficient to cover any losses it may incur. This is a right in any General Agreement of Indemnity I have seen and is a right the surety can rightfully exercise. A recent example is shown from the opinion in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Quinco Electrical, Inc., 2022 WL 1230110 (M.D.Fla. 2022), which pertains to the surety’s motion for preliminary injunction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

July 30, 2019 — Engineering News-Record
Federal safety officials are investigating the April 16 collapse of a trench that killed two construction workers in northern Colorado. The two men—Cristopher Lee Ramirez, 26, and Jorge Baez Valadez, 41—were installing utilities at a site being developed by D.R. Horton Express Homes in Windsor, Colo., when they were trapped by soil and rocks in the 15-ft-deep trench. The rescue attempt lasted seven hours and involved small shovels because of fears of a second collapse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

August 03, 2020 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
This year’s Colorado State Legislative session was cut short. However, in the period of time Colorado’s Legislature was in session, it passed and evaluated important legislation for Colorado homebuilders. This article highlights relevant legislation for Colorado homebuilders. 1. HB 20-1155 This Bill creates new requirements on new homebuilders to offer renewable energy systems to the buyer of a new home. Specifically, the Bill requires homebuilders to offer each of the following:

A solar panel system, a solar thermal system, or both;
Prewiring or pre-plumbing for the above solar systems; and,
A chase or conduit for future installation of such systems.

The Bill further requires Colorado homebuilders to offer homebuyers one of the following:

An electric vehicle charging system;
Prewiring for the future installation for such a system; or,
A plug-in receptacle in a place accessible to a vehicle parking area.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

April 11, 2022 — Zachary Shelton - Lewis Brisbois
(April 4, 2022) - Beginning July 1, 2022, Illinois trial courts will begin imposing new time standards for closing out pending cases. This change follows the Illinois Supreme Court’s March 25, 2022 announcement setting new time standards for case closure in trial courts. This announcement will apply to all cases filed in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2022. According to the recent announcement, the purpose of the new Time Standards Order (the Order) is to assist Illinois circuit courts with “meeting their fundamental obligation to resolve disputes fully, fairly, and promptly” by establishing a uniform, statewide expectation for parties, attorneys, and judges regarding the status of cases that will require each court to evaluate its actual performance compared to a statewide expectation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Shelton, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Shelton may be contacted at Zachary.Shelton@lewisbrisbois.com

Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

March 01, 2011 — Colorado Construction Litigation

In Dunn v. American Family Insurance, 09CA2173, 2010 WL 4791948 (Colo. App. Nov. 24, 2010), the Dunns reported a claim to American Family on their homeowners insurance policy after sewer and water backup caused sewage to flood their basement. American Family gave the Dunns contact information for a contractor (ICA) to remediate the flooding. However, ICA was unsuccessful and sewage began to infiltrate the Dunns’ HVAC system. Subsequently, black mold was detected in the HVAC system, the Dunns suffered health and respiratory problems, and they soon after vacated the home. The Dunns hired and fired two more contractors for unsatisfactory work throughout the winter before hiring a fourth to finish the job. Because the home remained vacant and unheated throughout the winter, the water pipes ruptured. The mold spread throughout the entire home and all of the contents needed to be replaced, which amounted to a claim of $340,000 on the policy.

American Family agreed to pay the full $340,000. However, the Dunns brought suit claiming that American Family breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by: 1) failing to screen ICA for expertise; 2) failing to screen ICA for liability insurance coverage; 3) failing to monitor ICA’s work; 4) failing to advise them that flooding can cause further damage, including freezing pipes and mold; and, 5) failing to adequately and promptly communicate with them and remediation subcontractors in the course of investigating and handling their claim.The trial court found no duty owed by American Family beyond adjustment and timely payment of claims. Because American Family paid timely and in full, they dismissed all of the Dunns’ claims. However, the Court of Appeals reversed in part.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Chad Johnson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

July 05, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
You don’t often hear about workers being attacked by ne’er-do-wells on a construction project. But, as they say, shite happens . . . Construction contracts often address health and safety issues, as well as site security to protect the improvement, materials, equipment and tools, as well as to protect the public from getting hit by say a large crane with a demolition ball, but site security to protect the workers from thugs, not so much. This is exactly what happened to a construction worker in Degala v. John Stewart Company (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 158 who was jumped and injured by three hoodlums who attacked him while he was working at a job site. The injured worker, an employee of a subcontractor, was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, but also brought claims against the general contractor and project owner for negligence and premises liability and they, in turn, argued they were immune from liability under the Privette doctrine. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

May 24, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

“Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

Read the court’s decision