Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

August 30, 2013 — James Ganion - Ulich & Terry, LLP
The following communication republished courtesy of James Ganion, Ulich & Terry, LLP Dear Builders, Colleagues, and Interested Parties: I attach for your review a copy of this week’s opinion of the California Court of Appeal in our case of Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield. This opinion represents a significant change to the right of California builders to repair homes under SB800, California’s Right to Repair Act. In a nutshell, the Court determined that SB800 was not intended to replace prior applicable law, but merely be supplemental to prior law. Thus, a homeowner, or in this case the homeowner’s insurer, can pick and choose among SB800 and prior law, or even allege both in the alternative. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal reversed the holding of the trial court which had held, as so many trial courts have since 2003, that SB800 was intended to be the new exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. While we of course take issue with most of what the Court of Appeal has to say, the real life net effect is that SB800 is now optional to the homeowner, meaning the “right” to repair now lies in the hands of the homeowner who can elect to simply bypass that law and proceed with the filing of a lawsuit under prior law. Hardly what any of us believe the legislature intended. ULICH & TERRY LLP as counsel for Brookfield in this case will be filing a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal by September 6, 2013. Anyone interested in supporting the petition may file a letter with the Court of Appeal, preferably by September 13, 2013. Thereafter, assuming the Court of Appeal does not grant rehearing, we will be filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. Our firm, as appellate counsel, has established a website libertymutualvbrookfieldcrystalcove.com and through it will be providing information regarding the case, including copies of pleadings, orders, deadlines, and information on how to provide support for this case, which is of interest to the home building industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Ganion
James Ganion can be contacted at jganion@ut-law.com

Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

January 19, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
Upcoming blog posts will focus on common contract provisions found in construction contracts. Such provisions are not solely limited to construction contracts and can be found in many other types of business contracts as well. This post will highlight indemnity clauses. An indemnity clause is a common contract provision used to allocate risk between parties to a contract. The clause obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to protect the other party (the Indemnitee) from certain losses, typically arising from claims of third parties. It may require the Indemnitor to reimburse the Indemnitee for losses or expenses, or satisfy judgments, or even defend the Indemnitee in a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Renovation Makes Old Arena Feel Brand New

February 15, 2021 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Since opening its doors in 1992, Phoenix’s downtown sports and entertainment arena has hosted hundreds of exciting contests involving the hometown Phoenix Suns and Phoenix Mercury professional basketball teams as well as high-profile concerts and other events. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, 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

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

OSHA/VOSH Roundup

August 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

November 29, 2021 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A long-running dispute between a landowner and a municipality has escalated to the Georgia Court of Appeals and in the federal court for the Northern District of Georgia.[1] The municipality maintained a stormwater system that discharged on property uphill from the landowner’s property. The uphill property was used as an illegal dump, and debris washed downhill from the dump to the landowner’s property. The debris clogged the landowner’s surface water drainage system, which caused flooding of the property and a building. State Case The landowner sued for trespass, nuisance, takings, and inverse condemnation. While the other claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations, the court addressed the plaintiff-landowner’s claim for continuing nuisance. Municipalities may be liable when they negligently construct or maintain a sewer or drainage system that causes repeated flooding of property, such that it results in a continuing, abatable nuisance.[2] For a municipality to be liable for maintenance of a nuisance:

the municipality must be chargeable with performing a continuous or regularly repetitious act, or creating a continuous or regularly repetitious condition, which causes the hurt, inconvenience or injury; the municipality must have knowledge or be chargeable with notice of the dangerous condition; and, if the municipality did not perform an act creating the dangerous condition, . . . the failure of the municipality to rectify the dangerous condition must be in violation of a duty to act.[3]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

“You’re Out of Here!” -- CERCLA (Superfund) Federal Preemption of State Environmental Claims in State Courts

October 20, 2016 — Joshua J. Anderson & John E. Van Vlear – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C § 9601 et seq. (“CERCLA”), commonly referred to as “Superfund,” is a federal statute that provides funding and cost-recovery to address our nation’s worst hazardous-waste sites. While CERCLA generally vests United States District Courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over all related controversies, section 113(h) of the Act delays such jurisdiction while the United States Environmental Protection Agency supervises or undertakes environmental response action plans. What impact does this delayed federal jurisdiction have on state law claims brought in state courts? Short answer: “You’re out of here!” Litigants are precluded from bringing claims in state court that “challenge” environmental response actions under CERCLA during the pendency of those actions. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua J. Anderson, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and John E. Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP Mr. Anderson may be contacted at joshua.anderson@ndlf.com Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lennar Homes addressed a problem with EIFS in homes built in Texas in the 1990s by replacing every roof they had built. Some of those homes had problems with leaks, rotting, or termites, but other roofs hadn’t suffered any problems. Lennar’s insurers initially refused coverage. Lennar managed to settle with all but one, Markel American Insurance. Their dispute formed the case Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Insurance Co. This was first tried before a jury and eventually appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Brian S. Martin of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP discusses this case at Insurance Journal. Markel’s claim was that under the policy language, Lennar could not make voluntary payments without getting Markel’s consent, which they did not. But the Texas Supreme Court disagreed, determining that Lennar took, as Mr. Martin notes, “a reasonable approach to a serious problem.” Markel also made the claim that the whole amount of the damages was not covered by the policy, as they did not view the policy as covering the cost of determining the extent of the damage. The Court disagreed, noting that “under no reasonable construction of the phrase can the cost of finding EIFS property damage in order to repair it not to be considered ‘because of the damage.’” Mr. Martin concludes by calling the Texas Supreme Court decision “a frontal assault on several critical provisions of liability policies that will assuredly lead to further litigation.” He also notes that the decision “may indicate a shift in the Court’s approach in insurance cases to a more result-oriented jurisprudence.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES