Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
ABC 7 reported that more than a dozen homes in Adams County, Colorado were inspected and approved by Building and Safety despite being built too close together. The problem was discovered by an inspector who cited a new home for being “4 inches too close to adjoining property.” Jim Williamette, the Adams County Chief Building Official told ABC 7, “It’s a fire issue for the separation of buildings.” The county may have solved the issue, according to ABC 7. Williamette stated that the properties “will be modified with fire-resistant windows” and combined with the “already-installed fire-resistant siding, the windows will satisfy the international building code.” Currently, the parties are in verbal agreement, and a “signed design proposal” is expected no later than January 21st. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

October 09, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. 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

That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

April 15, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Anyone recognize the photo to the left [Photo of Pay Phone]? If you are of the Millennial generation, this is a quaint thing called a public pay phone. They used to be everywhere. Imagine, not having a cell phone to keep you in constant contact with Big Brother…………. [the good old days]. As you may be able to tell from the fact that the receiver is hanging down, this phone has seen better days. What does this have to do with construction? Everything. Just because something is done one way– even for years, or decades– doesn’t mean it should stay that way. Just as you learn new technical skills and change your designs, you should also update and modernize your office practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A San Diego City Council committee has forwarded a revised plan to increase affordable housing in the city, which reduces the linkage fees increases, reported the U-T San Diego. The first proposal would have increased linkage fees by five times, while this new plan doubles current fees. The Times of San Diego reported that “[t]he fee had been halved in 1996 as an economic stimulus and was supposed to be reviewed annually, but wasn't.” However, Andrea Tevlin, the city of San Diego’s Independent Budget Analyst, estimated that “costs on developers would have jumped 400 percent to more than 700 percent, depending on the type of project.” The new proposal also contains exemptions for “developers of manufacturing facilities, warehouses and nonprofit hospitals from paying any fees at all,” according to U-T San Diego. “Developers of research and science-related projects would still have to pay fees, but they would be exempt from the proposed increase.” However, not everyone is satisfied by the compromise. “While the November 2013 proposal went too far, this new proposal doesn’t go far enough,” Tevlin told U-T San Diego. The vote had been deadlocked, 2-2, but will be forwarded to the main council because Republican Lori Zapf, committee chair, could break the tie. The new plan “created jointly by the San Diego Housing Commission and a group of business leaders called the Jobs Coalition, would increase the linkage fees’ annual yield from $2.2 million to an estimated $3.7 million and allow construction of 37 affordable housing units per year instead of 22,” U-T San Diego reported. Read the full story, U-T San Diego... Read the full story, Times of San Diego... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

December 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage regarding aesthetic uniformity between new materials installed after water damage occurred and the rest of the building. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. The Towers of Quayside No. 4 Condominium Assoc., Case No. 15-CV-20056-King (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2015). The insured's high rise condominium suffered water damage when a valve on the air conditioning unit damaged the drywall, carpeting, baseboards, insulation and wallpaper in the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. Floors three through twenty-five had a uniform appearance by design with respect to the carpet, wallpaper, and woodwork in the common area hallways. The insured submitted a claim under its property policy with Great American. A payment of $170,291.84 was made for damage to the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. The insured sought coverage to repair or replace undamaged carpeting, wallpaper, baseboards, and woodwork in (1) the west hallways and elevator landings of the eleventh floor and the floors below and in (2) floors twelve through twenty-five.The insured contended that the loss of aesthetic uniformity devalued the building and constituted a loss to the building. 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

Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

February 05, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (No. B247080, filed 1/30/2015) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held that a trial judge’s disclosure to the panel of prospective jurors of plaintiff’s status as an undocumented alien was prejudicial and grounds for a new trial. Plaintiff, Wilfredo Velasquez, brought suit against defendant, Centrome, Inc., alleging personal injuries related to on-the-job exposure to diacetyl, which was purportedly distributed by Centrome. Prior to trial, numerous motions in limine were filed with the trial court including a motion brought by Plaintiff to preclude Centrome from referring to or making any comments about Mr. Velasquez’s citizenship or immigration status. Plaintiff contended the information was not relevant (as no loss of earnings claim was asserted), and was substantially more prejudicial than probative. Defendant opposed the Motion arguing the information was relevant for the limited purpose of allowing expert testimony about Mr. Velasquez’s inability as an undocumented alien to participate in a lung transplant he claimed was needed. The Court deferred ruling on the motion. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Miami's Condo Craze Burns Out on Strong Dollar

June 10, 2015 — Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
The sales office for condominiums at Miami’s Brickell City Centre attracted more than 100 visitors daily last year, with prospective buyers crowding in and snapping selfies beside a scale model of the $1 billion project. Now, the flow of people has trickled to about a quarter of what it once was. “Buyers are asking really good questions” instead of rushing into deals, said Stephen Owens, president of the U.S. unit of Hong Kong-based Swire Properties Ltd., the developer of the 9-acre (3.6-hectare) condo, hotel, office and shopping complex. “Two years ago, it was, ‘Where can I sign?’” Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

October 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES