Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

January 28, 2019 — Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction Litigation
On December 18, 2018, Federal Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak recommended in a written opinion that the Motion of Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company (“Weyerhaeuser”) to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) be denied. Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 2018WL6589786 (D. Colo. 2018). As such, we believe District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello will accept this recommendation and the lawsuit will proceed. At interest in this lawsuit are TJI joists designed, manufactured, and sold by Weyerhaeuser for residential construction. Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Weyerhaeuser is one of the world’s largest private owners of timberlands, owning or controlling nearly 12.4 million acres in the United States and managing 14 million acres in Canada. It is a public company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange with revenues of $7.2 billion in 2017.[1] In addition to managing forests, Weyerhaeuser has interests in energy, minerals, and wood products. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Ashville, North Carolina, property owners have sued CTS Corp for alleged toxic chemicals in the soil and groundwater discovered decades after the company closed its manufacturing plant, according to the Citizen-Times. The contamination wasn’t discovered by the owners until 1999: “That lapse in time will be a primary point of consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court later this month when it hears arguments in a lawsuit brought by 25 Buncombe County property owners against the company.” Citizen-Times declared that the “issue is a North Carolina law establishing a 10-year ‘statute of repose’ that sets a deadline for filing claims related to environmental pollution in cases involving real property, even if the victims weren't aware of the contamination until long after.” However, the law might be “pre-empted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act passed by Congress in 1980.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

February 07, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions Blog
On construction projects owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a contractor may make a claim with the Board of Claims. But first, you must be aware of two limitations periods that could cause you to waive your claim if they are not met. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not 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

Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

May 31, 2021 — Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
1. Understanding the “Products-Completed Operations Hazard” ISO commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies use the term “products-completed operations hazard” (“PCOH”) to define a category of risk which is treated specially by certain exclusions within the policy and often subject to separate limits of insurance. In construction, we think about PCOH as being about coverage for completed work. Bodily injury and property damage arising out of completed work is a significant construction risk. Most construction contracts include warranty and indemnity obligations for completed work. All states allow lawsuits to be brought alleging bodily injury or property damage because of completed work based on common law. Contract and common law claims are subject to statutes of limitation – laws which define the time in which suits must be brought. Most states provide exceptions to their statutes of limitation for common law claims – the most common example is an extension to file a lawsuit based on a latent defect until the defect is discovered. Most states also have “statutes of repose” – laws that set a date after which suit may no longer be brought, no matter what the circumstances are. A construction contractor, therefore, has potential liability until the statute of repose period has expired. Thus, a contractor looks to ensure that it has coverage for the PCOH for its full statute of repose liability period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Welch may be contacted at JWelch@sdvlaw.com

Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a “tentative decision” by Judge Steven Kleifield, Mark Van Peebles and a real estate company have been exonerated “of any liability in a lawsuit involving the sale of the actor’s Playa del Rey condominium, whose buyer says he discovered mold and a flooring defect,” according to the Patch. However, the judge “ordered the Waterfront Homeowners Association to pay Adel Bebawy $26,217 for repair work on the floor and the kitchen as well as civil penalties for not keeping him informed about board meetings.” The suit began in 2009 after Bebawy alleged “he discovered the floor had a severe slope and that there was significant mold in a bathroom,” reported the Patch. Kleifield, however, stated that the mold didn’t affect the condo’s value. Furthermore, Kleifield wrote that the sloping didn’t become an issue until Bebawy began installing a hardwood floor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

April 19, 2021 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As we start another trip around the sun, hopefully you are in the process of updating your form contracts, including purchase and sale agreements and express written warranties. Because the law and litigation landscape continually changes, it is a good practice to periodically update the forms you use in order to give yourself a fighting chance if and when the plaintiffs' attorneys come knocking on your door. As you engage in this process, I hope that you will take a critical look at whether your contracts include a prevailing party attorneys' fees clause and, if so, whether you should leave it in there. In Colorado, parties are entitled to recover attorneys' fees only if provided for by statute or by contract. Historically, plaintiffs' attorneys relied on two statutes, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, to recover attorneys’ fees in construction defect cases. In 2003, the Colorado legislature capped treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act at $250,000, effectively restricting plaintiffs' attorneys from relying on the CCPA to recoup their attorneys' fees, especially in large cases. In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Goodyear v. Holmes, stating that plaintiffs can only claim prejudgment interest under Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, in cases where they have already spent money on repairs, not when they are suing for an estimate of what repairs will cost in the future. Without either the CCPA or the prejudgment interest statute to recover attorneys' fees, plaintiffs' attorneys most often now rely on the prevailing party attorney fee clause in contracts between the owner and builder, or in the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions in situations where a claim is prosecuted by an HOA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Bidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is Set

April 13, 2017 — JT Long - Engineering News-Record
In a race to fix the damaged Oroville Dam’s main spillway by November, the California Dept. of Water Resources, the operator of the country’s tallest dam, is going to bid with a 65%-complete design that breaks recovery efforts into three parts, with an ultimate goal of doubling the main spillway’s release capacity to 270,000 cu ft per second. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES