Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

February 07, 2022 — Craig Rokuson & Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
As discussed in our post on Friday, January 7, 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, mandating comprehensive, automatic disclosures regarding insurance in all cases pending in New York courts. Although the law was signed as written, Governor Hochul also made proposed amendments to the law, in the form of a “redline” in an attempt to make the law less onerous on insurance companies and businesses. On January 18, 2022, Senator Andrew Gounardes introduced Senate Bill 7882, incorporating Governor Hochul’s proposed amendments:

The time for disclosure would be 90 days of service of the answer, instead of 60.
The proof of insurance could constitute a declaration page only, if a party agrees in writing.
The required policies to be disclosed only relate to the claim litigated.

Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

December 22, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

September 09, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only. In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

June 05, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
On April 18, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13788 implementing his “Buy American, Hire American” campaign promise. Federal construction contractors familiar with “Buy American” clauses in federal contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)–which require materials to be manufactured in the United States (or, depending on the clause, not manufactured in certain countries) unless a waiver is obtained–have waited anxiously to see what Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” promise would mean for them. Well . . . as it turns out, not much, at least not yet. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

April 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Kansas Court of Appeals determined that the insurer must defend claims of negligent misrepresentation against its insured. Central Power Sys. & Servs. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 2014 Kan. App. LEXIS 9 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2014). Central Power contracted to furnish Eagle Well with 10 oil-rig engines and 10 oil-rig transmissions. Eagle Well alleged that Central Power informed them that the engines and transmissions would be operational without any additional components. As is turned out, the engines could not operate without a wiring harness. Eagle Well had to hire a third party to make wiring harnesses that would meet their needs and to install the wiring harnesses. Eagle Wells sued Central Power, alleging damages in the form of lost profits for the time it took to make the engines independently operational. Further, damages were incurred due to money needed for the costs of purchasing the wiring harnesses from the third party and attaching the harnesses to the engines. Claims asserted against Central Power included breach of contract, negligence and negligent misrepresentation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Practical Distinction Between Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation and How to Deal with Both on Construction Projects

June 10, 2024 — Devon Griger - ConsensusDocs
When a multilevel construction project is underway and a contractor or subcontractor isn’t performing as expected, it can be difficult to know how to address the low performance without putting the parties’ contract and good working relationship at risk. However, there may come a time when poor performance lapses into a something much worse: an anticipatory breach or repudiation of the subject contract. Imagine Scenario One: You are a general contractor managing a large-scale construction project and one of your subcontractors is falling behind on their work. The project manager for the subcontractor calls you and says, “Look, I don’t think we’re going to be able to hit our next milestone, and probably not the next one after that.” A conversation like this would generally trigger concern for most general contractors, but it would not necessarily invoke panic. These types of delay conversations are not uncommon on large scale projects. Compare that example, however, with Scenario Two, where the subcontractor instead says, “We received an offer to work another job for much more money, so we’re leaving the project site today and will not be returning.” This is obviously different (and potentially worse) than Scenario One, and likely cause for much greater concern. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Devon Griger, Jones Walker
Ms. Griger may be contacted at dgriger@joneswalker.com

Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

November 28, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

January 21, 2015 — Kathleen M. Howley – Bloomberg
The U.S. mortgage market hit bottom in 2014. Chief economists at Fannie Mae and Moody’s Analytics Inc. as well as the Mortgage Bankers Association all predicted a turnaround this year after a record decline in 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen M. Howley, Bloomberg
Ms. Howley may be contacted at kmhowley@bloomberg.net

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES