CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Massachusetts Appellate Court Confirms Construction Defects are Not Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policies

January 21, 2025 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In a case of first impression in Massachusetts, Lessard v. R.C. Havens & Sons, Inc., 104 Mass. App. Ct. 572 (2024), the Appellate Court confirmed that construction defects, without more, do not constitute property damage within the meaning of a commercial general liability policy (CGL). In Lessard, the homeowners filed suit against an insured homebuilder for construction defects in their home. After the homeowners won a jury verdict, the homebuilder’s insurer intervened and sought a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to indemnify the homebuilder under its CGL policy. The superior court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the insurer, and the homeowners appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---

2024 Update to CEB’s Mechanics Liens Now Available

October 15, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For a number of years we have had the honor to serve as update authors for several publications of California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB). I didn’t realize it until now but the CEB, a program of the University of California, was started more than 75 years ago following WWII to provide veterans who were attorneys with practical guidance on changes to the law as they returned to their practices following the war. Pretty cool! Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

June 14, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals in the case of Kizor v. Architects ruled that Mr. Kizor could not make construction defect claims against the architect and contractor of his home, as the defects had caused significant damage to the former owners, and it was they, not Kizor, who could have asserted those claims.



The background of the case was that John and Miranda Redig hired BRU Architects to design a home. During construction in 2000, they wrote to the roofing supplier complaining about leaks. The leaks were caulked, but the roof continued leaking during rains. The Redigs sold their house to Kizor in 2002, with an addendum to the sale contract protecting themselves from liability for further problems with the roof. “Seller has no responsibility for the condition of the roof and stucco and buyer absolves seller of any liability in connection therewith.”



In 2006, Kizor sued the architects, contractor, and subcontractor. The defendants moved for summary judgment which was granted. Kizor appealed, and in this current court case, appeal was denied.



Read the court’s decision

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

---

Cause Still Unclear in March Retaining Wall Collapse on $900M NJ Interchange

June 07, 2021 — Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
A probe continues by construction engineer Hardesty and Hanover LLC into what caused the late March collapse of a retaining wall that is part of one of New Jersey's largest roadbuilding projects—the already late-running effort called Direct Connection, which aims to untangle the convoluted interchange of north-south I-295 and east-west Route 42 in Camden County. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

November 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting Montana law, the federal district court found that the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause prevented coverage for the insured's damaged home. Ward v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149051 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2021). Plaintiff was advised by her tenants that water was bubbling up from the ground. It was determined that water was leaking from a main pipe serving the property. Subsequently, this old pipe was abandoned, left in the ground, and replaced with a new pipe in a new path with new excavation. Nevertheless, the insured reported the incident to her agent under her Landlord Protection Policy issued by Safeco, but reported there was no damage to the property. Two months later, it was discovered a pipe burst again. The insured called her agent, who maintained the loss would not be covered, but agreed to submit a claim to Safeco. Safeco hired an inspector. A report stated that a portion of cracks found in the concrete perimeter of the home were not new and that the shape of the structure on which the house sat could explain their presence. The report noted that new cracks in the foundation could have been caused by a lack of care to make sure that the foundation was sufficient supported by consolidated soil during the excavation of the new water line. Based upon this report, Safeco denied coverage based upon the earth movement and water damage exclusions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

February 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

September 23, 2019 — Andres Avila & Richard W. Brown - SDV Insights
Policyholders in Puerto Rico should be aware of significant benefits provided by recent amendments to the Insurance Code. New rules establish an expedited method of property insurance dispute resolution, mandatory expedited partial payments in the event of catastrophic events, and protection against bad faith claims handling by insurers. Appraisal Process with a Puerto Rican Twist A key amendment is the establishment of an appraisal process, widely used for many years in the United States and now adopted in Puerto Rico. Commercial and personal property insurers in Puerto Rico shall include, in their policies, a clause for an appraisal process according to Article 11.150 of the Insurance Code of Puerto Rico, 26 L.P.R.A. § 101 et seq. (“the Code”). The appraisal process provides both policyholders and insurers the option to submit insurance claims to an impartial umpire if a dispute arises over the value of covered damages or losses. The umpire and appraisers do not have authority to resolve coverage or legal issues. They can only resolve disputes over the quantum claimed for losses already determined to be covered by the insurer. Id. Each party is required to pay its own appraiser’s fees and split equally the fees of the umpire. Id. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

July 26, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner. Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

---