CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

August 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember that case I discussed a while back relating to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) building in Annapolis, Maryland? Remember how it was a lawsuit over parallams and failure of those parallams? Do you even remember what a parallam is? Well, that case was initially dismissed upon the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because the trial court determined that CBF did not file its lawsuit within the proper time frame after notice of the potential failure of the building materials. Of course, CBF appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under the caption The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et. al. v. Weyerhaeuser Company (4th Circuit). After a great review of the facts of the case, the engineering inspections and reports at issue and the trial court’s ruling, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the district court jumped the gun in dismissing the lawsuit so early in the process because:

a genuine dispute exists as to whether knowledge of the water infiltration problem would have put a reasonable person on notice that the Parallams were susceptible to premature deterioration and that their PolyClear 2000 treatment would not preserve them.

In short, the court ruled that the engineering reports relating to moisture issues would have put CBF on notice of the particular issue of deterioration that was at issue in the litigation. 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

---

Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

March 14, 2022 — Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

December 09, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Water intrusion caused by a construction defect was not covered under the all risk policy’s ensuing loss provision. See Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123582 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2011).

Extensive water damage was discovered in the insureds’ home when a small hole in the exterior wall was being repaired. Chubb’s adjuster and an expert found water intrusion causing rot, mold, and damage to the home’s wood framing and insulation. Chubb denied coverage because water intruded through the roof and wall, resulting in gradual deterioration. The insureds filed suit.

The policy excluded coverage for construction defects, but insured "ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies."

The court agreed there was a prima facie case for coverage because the home suffered a physical loss.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

May 13, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As regular readers of Construction Law Musings are well aware, I like to discuss mechanic’s liens. Whether it is their picky nature, the way court’s treat them or the soon to take effect changes in the form, mechanic’s liens are a topic near and dear to my heart as a construction attorney. This past month the Fairfax Circuit Court took on the intersection of mechanic’s lien priority under Virginia Code section 43-21 (the lien priority statute) and what constitute necessary parties that must be named in any enforcement suit. In Marines Plumbing, LLC v. Durbin, et al., the Court discussed an all too typical scenario. Marines Plumbing performed repair work on the defendants’ property and the defendants did not pay for the work. Marines Plumbing recorded a memorandum of lien and subsequently sued to enforce that lien. In filing its suit, Marines Plumbing failed to name the trustees and lender on a deed of trust securing the loan on the property. Needless to say, the Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to name necessary parties (lender and trustees). 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

---

Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Nevada Speaker says that AB401 gives contractors what they want, but a contractors’ group has asked a Senate committee to kill the bill. Supporters of AB 401 say that it clarifies what qualifies as a construction defect and shortens the statute of limitations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Project Delivery Methods: A Bird’s-Eye View

November 01, 2021 — Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Stewart Shurtleff - ConsensusDocs
For centuries the ability to construct sophisticated structures has been the yardstick for measuring civilizations. Naturally, as our knowledge and capacity to build has evolved and developed over the ages, the methods of project delivery have similarly progressed. From Design-Bid-Build to CM-at-Risk and Design-Build to Integrated Project Delivery, each method developed to fit a very specific need—but each carries its own set of inherent risks and rewards. In this article we explore key aspects and differences among the various delivery methods that are commonly used in today’s construction industry, and provide guidance related to the obligations and risk profiles of the parties involved. Ideally, contractors and construction managers may refer to the advice provided herein when determining whether a proposed delivery method properly fits the requirements of the project under consideration. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Stewart Shurtleff, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Mr. Shurtleff may be contacted at sshurtleff@pecklaw.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

---

Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

February 11, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Florida case discussing a contractual arbitration provision in a homebuilder’s contract discussed the difference between a narrow arbitration provision and a broad arbitration provision. See Vancore Construction, Inc. v. Osborn, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2769b (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Understanding the distinction between the two types of arbitration provisions is important, particularly if you are drafting and/or negotiating a contractual arbitration provision. A narrow contractual arbitration provision includes the verbiage “arises out of” the contract such that disputes arising out of the contract are subject to arbitration. Arbitration is required for those claims the have a direct relationship with the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---