Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Remote Depositions in the Post-Covid-19 World

September 06, 2021 — Islam M. Ahmad - Wilke Fleury, LLP
Despite the easing of COVID-19 restrictions in California, many of the changes imposed on the legal industry by the pandemic will likely remain in effect for the foreseeable future. One major change for litigators has been conducting depositions remotely. This change takes an already intricate task and makes it further complex by adding a new dimension of factors to consider. It is imperative that litigators understand these factors to avoid giving their opposition an undue advantage and to maximize the utility of depositions. While we may disagree as to whether remote depositions are a welcome change, the fact of the matter is that lawyers must adapt to them and provide adequate legal representation. This article explores some of the challenges and opportunities presented by remote depositions.

The Deponent

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Islam M. Ahmad, Wilke Fleury, LLP
Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at iahmad@wilkefleury.com

Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

May 01, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Natural elements are an essential part of the built environment. However, BIM tools offer almost no support to landscape architecture. Plehat is introducing a new solution that helps architects and decision-makers to understand the dynamics of nature and make smart design choices. Plehat used photogrammetric 3D models of Uunisaari islands, to the south of Helsinki. The experimenters modeled the buildings and the plants on the island and used game engine software to create a virtual reality (VR) experience. They called the app the “Landscape Time Machine”. The technology solution they developed paved the way for new software that the company will launch later this year. In 2018, Plehat, a landscape design startup, received funding from the Finnish national KIRA-digi digitalization project to carry out a test. The experimentation demonstrated how seasonal changes and weather conditions affect plants, and how the environment can be visualized and analyzed virtually. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

March 09, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A statutory bad faith claim against an insurer is derived from Florida Statute s. 624.155. A bad faith claim against a first party insurer, such as a property insurer, must be statutory. Check out the hyperlink of the statute, but a party must first file a Civil Remedy Notice identifying the statutory violations to preserve the statutory bad faith claim giving the insurer an opportunity to cure. In a noteworthy case, Cooper v. Federated National Insurance Company, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2961a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with the jury instruction for an insured’s statutory bad faith claim against their property insurer. The insured filed a bad faith claim predicated on the property insurer violating the provisions of Florida Statute s. 626.9541(1)(i)3, which involves unfair claim settlement practices. The insured had a jury trial and submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding bad faith that tracked the very essence of their bad faith claim and was modeled after s. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). The trial court, however, denied this jury instruction, instead adopting a standard jury instruction for bad faith. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property insurer and the insured appealed arguing it was reversible error for the trial court NOT to present to the jury their bad faith jury instruction. The Fifth District agreed and ordered a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to present the jury instruction amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 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

Best Lawyers Honors 43 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Three Partners as 'Lawyers of The Year'

September 14, 2020 — Lewis Brisbois
Best Lawyers has selected 43 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 25 offices for inclusion in its list of 2021 Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized three Lewis Brisbois partners as "Lawyers of the Year": Los Angeles Partner Jon P. Kardassakis (Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants); Roanoke Partner Paul C. Kuhnel (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); and Northwest Indiana Managing Partner Renee J. Mortimer (Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating these three partners and the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects

October 17, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can a subsequent purchaser pursue construction defect claims relating to the original construction of the property? This was the threshold issue on a motion for summary judgment by a drywall manufacturer against a subsequent purchaser of a home in Karpel v. Knauf Gips KG, 2022 WL 4366946 (S.D. Fla. 2022). This matter deals with the defective Chinese drywall that was installed in homes years ago. The plaintiffs, which were subsequent purchasers of a home, sued the manufacturer of the defective drywall for various theories including negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, unjust enrichment, and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The trial court noted, from the onset, that Florida does NOT have a subsequent purchaser rule that prohibits subsequent purchasers from asserting construction defect claims. With this consideration in mind, the trial court went through the claims the plaintiff, as a subsequent purchaser, asserted against the manufacturer to determine whether they were viable claims as a matter of law. Negligence Claim The trial court found that a subsequent purchaser could sue in negligence. “Florida courts have long allowed subsequent purchasers to sue for negligence including in construction defect litigation.” Karpel, supra, at *2. 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

Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters

October 25, 2020 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
In September, the Trump administration announced a national moratorium on evictions, via an order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aimed at reducing the spread of coronavirus. The four-month temporary suspension applies to any tenant who can’t make rent due to economic conditions and who presents a written declaration about their circumstances to their landlord. But the CDC ban now faces legal challenges on multiple fronts, even as landlords continue to routinely file evictions for nonpayment of rent — the very outcome that the order was designed to prevent. On Oct. 20, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia heard the first case against the moratorium, Richard Lee Brown, et al. v. Secretary Alex Azar, et al.. That challenge, brought by a nonprofit called the New Civil Liberties Alliance, has been joined by the National Apartment Association, which represents some 85,000 landlords responsible for 10 million rental units. Lawyers and scholars working on behalf of plaintiffs in the cases say that the CDC lacks the constitutional authority to enact a policy affecting rents. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

Cal/OSHA-Approved Changes to ETS Will Take Effect May 6, 2022

May 16, 2022 — Matthew C. Lewis & Nicole R. Kardassakis - Payne & Fears
A new, third revised version of the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”) has been approved by Cal/OSHA, and is expected to go into effect on May 6, 2022. This updated ETS will likely be in effect through Dec. 31, 2022. The language still needs to be reviewed, finalized, and filed with the Secretary of State by the Office of Administrative Law, but a redline of the proposed changes that Cal/OSHA has approved is available here. Much of the previous ETS (which took effect in January 2022, and we discussed here) will remain in effect. But the new version includes some key changes, including the following:

Employers will now have similar obligations toward employees who are fully vaccinated and employees who are not fully vaccinated with respect to testing and face coverings. Employers must make COVID-19 testing available at no cost to all symptomatic employees during the employee’s paid time, regardless of the employee’s vaccination status. Employers also must make respirators available to all employees upon request, again regardless of the employee’s vaccination status.

Reprinted courtesy of Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Nicole R. Kardassakis, Payne & Fears Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Ms. Kardassakis may be contacted at nrk@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES