CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

2015 California Construction Law Update

December 31, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Over 2,200 bills were introduced during the second and final year of the 2013-2014 legislative session of which 931 were signed into law. For the design and construction industry, the end of the second session, like the end of the first session, saw a number of new prevailing wage bills signed into law, which again reflected the strong Democratic majorities in both the Assembly and Senate. The end of the second session also saw the enactment of laws consolidating several existing design-build authorization sections and extending the 5% cap on retention for public works projects. 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

---

Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act

May 08, 2023 — Jeffrey Hummel - The Construction Seyt
Under the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq., contractors hired to work on federal construction projects are required to furnish payment bonds in order to ensure payment to certain persons that provide labor for the project. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a published decision clarifying the type of work that qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company (issued April 26, 2023). In that case, the U.S. Department of Defense hired Forney Enterprises (Forney) as the prime contractor on a renovation project at the Pentagon. Forney retained Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) to provide the required Miller Act payment bond. Forney then entered into a subcontract with Elliott Dickson (Dickson), a professional engineer, to work as a project manager on the contract. Dickson primarily supervised labor on the site, but also performed other tasks, including logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself. Dickson’s work required him to be onsite on a daily basis. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Hummel, Seyfarth
Mr. Hummel may be contacted at jhummel@seyfarth.com

---

Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

October 19, 2020 — Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
A recently issued opinion by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District tells a cautionary tale regarding a lender’s failure to name a junior lienholder in its initial judicial foreclosure action. In Cathleen Robin v. Al Crowell, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2020 WL 5951506, plaintiffs sued defendant, a junior lienholder, for quiet title, having failed to name him in the initial judicial foreclosure action. Defendant raised the statute of limitations defense, but the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the 60-year statute of limitations which the trial court applied only applied to a nonjudicial trustee’s sale, and the trial court could not exercise the trustee’s power of sale after the expiration of the statute of limitations on a judicial action to foreclose. In 2006, plaintiffs loaned Steve and Marta Weinstein (the “Weinsteins”) $450,000, secured by a deed of trust on one parcel of the Weinstein’s property. In 2007, the Weinsteins and defendant Al Crowell (“Crowell”) recorded a second deed of trust on the property, securing a promissory note executed by the Weinsteins in 2004. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

---

Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

December 19, 2018 — Tracey W. Pruiett - Smith Currie
Encountering an unexpected site condition is one of the more common risks on a construction project. A “differing site condition”, or it is sometimes called a “changed condition”, is generally understood to be a physical condition that is discovered while performing work and that was not visible or otherwise expected at the time of bidding. Often, the condition could not have been discovered by a reasonable site investigation. Examples of common differing site conditions include: soil with inadequate bearing capacity to support the building being constructed, soil that cannot be reused as structural fill, unanticipated groundwater, quicksand, mud, rock formations, or other artificial subsurface obstructions. Differing site conditions may also occur within the walls or ceilings of a renovation project such as the renovation of a hospital or historic building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracey W. Pruiett, Smith Currie
Ms. Pruiett may be contacted at twpruiett@smithcurrie.com

---

Workers at Two NFL Stadiums Test Positive for COVID-19, But Construction Continues

April 13, 2020 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
Construction at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, Calif., and Allegiant Stadium outside Las Vegas—two new NFL stadiums scheduled to open in 2020—continue forward despite a worker at each location testing positive for COVID-19. Tim Newcomb, 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

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to McCarter & English, LLP, “product manufacturers relied on commercial general liability policies to defend and indemnify them for product liability claims,” however, in result of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006), “[i]nsurers began denying coverage to Pennsylvania companies – and companies around the country – arguing that a design or manufacturing defect was not an ‘accident.’” McCarter & English, LLP reported that “the tide has begun to turn, and product manufacturers may once again be reliably protected by from product liability claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?

March 19, 2024 — Curtis W. Martin & Kellie M. Ros - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
You are inexcusably late with construction of a football stadium, a casino, or similar project that generates large income for the owner. The indirect damages, often referred to as consequential damages, that flow from the delay can be astronomical to the point of breaking your company if it must pay them. As a result, many construction contracts, at every tier, contain a provision that waives consequential damages. By this waiver, a party seeks to limit its risk for these damages. Over the years, courts have interpreted these provisions in a widely variable and inconsistent manner. The courts typically start with the specific language of the waiver to discern the parties’ intent. Thus, the language of the provision itself is critical. But construction professionals should not overlook other provisions in the contract that may have an impact on a court’s analysis of the parties’ intent. As one of my colleagues likes to say, “the large print giveth and the small print taketh away.” Reprinted courtesy of Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Kellie M. Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Ms. Ros may be contacted at kros@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

February 27, 2023 — Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff determining that it had no duty to defend or indemnify an insured in a personal injury action, in a case brought in the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff, an insurance provider (“the Insurer”), issued a General Commercial Policy (the “Policy”) to the Defendant, a commercial property owner (the “Property Owner”). In the underlying action, a former employee (the “Employee”) of a concrete vendor sued the Property Owner, and others, in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, for an injury that occurred on the street in front of the Property Owner’s premises during the course of repairs of sewer pipes that serviced the Property Owner’s premises. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com

---