CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

October 28, 2015 — Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Japan’s biggest developer, is considering rebuilding an apartment complex in Yokohama after one of the four buildings started to tilt, according to a person familiar with the situation. Kiyotaka Fujibayashi, president and chief executive officer of Mitsui Fudosan Residential Co., on Thursday explained the plans to residents, according to the person, who asked not to be named because the information is private. Another option the company is studying is buying back the apartments from the residents at a price higher than what they had paid, the person said. The project was sold in 2006. Mitsui Fudosan is the latest developer to come under scrutiny for defects at residential projects in the Tokyo area. Mitsubishi Estate Co., Japan’s biggest developer by market value, said last year it would rebuild a residential complex in the upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding faults. Also last year, Sekisui House Ltd. said it would reconstruct a residential complex that was being built by Taisei Corp. after finding some columns were missing reinforcing metals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katsuyo Kuwako, Bloomberg

---

Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

April 27, 2020 — John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard & Leah B. Nommensen - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause. The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard and Leah B. Nommensen Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at leahnommensen@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

February 07, 2018 — David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights
In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.

December 20, 2021 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
In November, as one of her first major acts since taking office, New York Governor Kathy Hochul pared back development plans for New York City’s Pennsylvania Station set in place by her predecessor, disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo. The Cuomo plan would have greatly expanded Penn Station and upscaled the neighborhood; Hochul’s vision narrows the scope of work, but it still stands to dramatically transform the subterranean transportation hub, which has been the focus of various unrealized redesign dreams for decades. On Dec. 8, critics and supporters sounded off on the Penn Station scheme in a public hearing. More than 200 people registered to weigh in on how the 10 new skyscrapers coming to the area (shrunk down a bit under Hochul) would affect the scale and character of the community, and the historic buildings that would need to be razed to make way for new development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

---

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

September 01, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a client alert by the firm Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A), “In a recent significant decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that defective work of a subcontractor that causes consequential property damage is both an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage’ under the terms of a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy.” Patrick J. Greene, Jr., and Frank A. Hess of P&A wrote that the Cypress Point Condominium Assoc., Inc. v Adria Towers, LLC, 2016 N.J. Lexis 847 (Aug.4,2016) “decision is important in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions that had relied upon the influential New Jersey case, Weedo v. Stone–E–Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233 (1979), that had determined that such claims involved non-insured ‘business risks.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

December 21, 2020 — Adrian L. Bastianelli, III & Jennifer Harris - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mediation took the construction industry by storm in the late 1980’s and has become a staple for resolving construction claims. Today, most construction contracts, including the ConsensusDocs, require mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution, whether it be arbitration or litigation. As a result, many construction executives have spent long hours sitting in conference rooms trying to reach resolution with their counterpart through mediation in order to avoid the alternative – costly arbitration or litigation that often produces an unsatisfactory result. While many businesses have foreclosed the possibility of meeting in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the contractual requirements for mediation remain. Thus, in most cases, in-person or live mediation is no longer an option; however, attorneys and mediators have developed a virtual process to replace the live process. With a new process comes many questions: Does the virtual process work? What are the best practices and pitfalls for virtual mediation? Will virtual mediation continue when COVID-19 fades away? How do I make virtual mediation work for me? The answers to these questions and more are discussed below. Reprinted courtesy of Adrian L. Bastianelli, III, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Bastianelli may be contacted at abastianelli@pecklaw.com Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that “non-contracting parties may bring negligence claims for construction defects because such claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine,” as Richard Erikson writes in a Snell & Wilmer Legal Alert. In the case of Sullivan v. Pulte Home, Pulte had built the home in 2000. The original buyer sold it to the Sullivans in 2003. The Sullivans discovered construction defects in a retaining wall in 2009. The lost their original lawsuit, but the appeals court found that if the Sullivans filed within two years of finding the damage, they could sue. The case then progressed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Erikson points out that in an amicus brief, a number of parties in the Arizona homebuilding industry argued that “the appellate court’s ruling was commercially irreconcilable with expectations of builders, homeowners, homebuyers, engineers and architects in the construction industry.” Nevertheless, the Sullivans prevailed at court. Erikson asks what the actual limit on construction defects must be, given that the court found for plaintiffs who discovered construction defects nine years after the home was built. “How many years after the builder finishes a home does it have to plan on defending defect claims—10, 20, 30 years?” He proposes that the Arizona legislature needs to clarify the specific limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

November 16, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are a contractor, you are aware of workers’ compensation immunity when it comes to injuries on the site; and, if not, you should be. It is this workers’ compensation immunity (where workers compensation is the exclusive form of liability for an injured employee) which is why a contractor should generally always want to ensure its subcontractors have workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation immunity would protect a contractor that is being sued by a subcontractor’s employees that are injured on the job. For more information on workers’ compensation immunity, please check out this article and this article. In this regard, Florida Statute s. 440.10(1)(b) provides:

In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.

(If the subcontractor does not have workers’ compensation insurance, the contractor is deemed the statutory employer and its workers’ compensation insurance would apply. Otherwise, the subcontractor’s workers compensation insurance would apply.) 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

---