CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in Creswell v. Estate of Howe, a case in which a woman bought a home and then sued the seller’s estate, both sets of real estate agents, and the homeowner’s association over construction defects. A district court ruled against her, granting summary judgment to the other parties.

After buying a townhome “as is,” Catherine Creswell claims to have shared a thought with her agent that the homeowners association was, in the words of her agent, “trying to hide something.” Later, Creswell found that a few days before her closing, the board had discussed problems with “roofs, siding and soundproofing of the townhomes.” The court noted that “it was clear from the documents that appellant [Creswell] received that the association had known about various construction defects for many years, some of which affected [her] unit.”

Creswell initially sued the estate, the man who negotiated the sale for his mother’s estate, the real estate companies and the agents involved, the homeowners association, and four board members. Later she sued for punitive damages, dropped a claim for interference with contractual relations, and dismissed her claims against the individual board members. The court dismissed all of Creswell’s claims awarding costs to those she sued.

The appeals court has affirmed the decision of lower court, noting that Creswell “did not provide us with any argument why the district court erred in dismissing her unjust-enrichment, breach of contract, or rescission claims against the various respondents.” Nor did she provide evidence to support her claims of “breach of duty, fraud, and violation of consumer protection statutes.”

The court noted that Creswell could not sue the homeowners association over the construction defects because she “failed to prove that she was damaged by the association’s nondisclosure.” The court noted that “there are no damages in this case,” as Creswell “was never assessed for any repairs, she had not paid anything out-of-pocket for repairs, and she has presented no evidence that the value of her individual unit has declined because of the alleged undisclosed construction defects.”

The court granted the other parties motion to dismiss and denied Creswell’s motion to supplement the record. Costs were awarded to the respondents.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

It’s Not Just the Millennium Tower That’s Sinking in San Francisco

December 06, 2021 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff
Much has been reported over the years regarding the sinking Millennium Tower in San Francisco, but now new reports are emerging regarding sinking sidewalks in the Mission Bay neighborhood and images from space demonstrating that the entire Downtown San Francisco area may also be sinking. According to CBS SF BayArea, some sidewalks in Mission Bay have sunk “as much as a foot and more in some spots.” The neighborhood is built upon a landfill, which requires the buildings to be anchored to bedrock—the streets and sidewalks, however, are the property owners’ responsibility. Engineers for the UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay “took a proactive approach.” CBS SF BayArea alleges, however, that many surrounding condo developers did not. SFGate reported that the sidewalk issue may be difficult to solve “as any fixes to the surface only serve to increase the weight of the pavement, speeding its descent into the landfill.” It may not just be sidewalks and streets that are sinking. U.S Geological Survey research geophysicist Tom Parsons “says earth-based and space-based observations confirm the entire downtown area around it is sinking as well.” According to the NBC Bay Area story, Parsons “estimated settlement of three inches across the entire Bay Area.” The Millennium Tower weighs an estimated 686 million pounds, making it the third heaviest building in San Francisco. However, it is the only one that’s significantly leaning. San Francisco building officials told NBC Bay Area that there are plans in place “to shore up the seawall that protects the Embarcadero.” Read the full story at CBS SF BayArea... Read the full story at SFGate... Read the full story at NBC Bay Area... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

November 19, 2021 — Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub Lieberman
On September 14, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a City which operated a park containing a natural bathing spring in Sarasota County, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff went to the park, entered the spring without incident, swam for more than an hour, then exited the spring and was returning to the area where she had stored her belongings when she slipped and fell on mud and grass, sustaining an open angulated fracture of her right tibia and fibula. The Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital where she underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery on her right leg which consisted of implantation of a metal rod into the medullary cavity of her tibia that was secured by two proximal and two distal interlocking screws. She was in the hospital for four days. Upon discharge, the Plaintiff was placed in a walking boot and confined to a wheelchair for several months. The Plaintiff incurred nearly $100,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the City claiming it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Plaintiff also alleged that the City failed to warn her that the area where she had stored her belongings had become saturated and slippery proximately causing her fall and resulting injuries. After the close of discovery, Mr. Guldalian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the City arguing the wet grass and mud upon which the Plaintiff fell and injured herself was a byproduct of patrons going in and out of the water and walking to and from the area where they stored their belongings, was open and obvious, and did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Citing to case law from the Florida Supreme Court which held that it is common knowledge that walks adjacent to, leading to, or surrounding a bathing area generally have water constantly thrown upon them and are in a slippery condition, as well as deposition testimony from the Plaintiff confirming she had been swimming at the spring for the past eighteen plus years and was “very familiar” with the park, the spring, and the area where she normally stored her belongings, Mr. Guldalian argued that some injury-causing conditions, like wet grass and mud surrounding a swimming area, are simply so open and so obvious that they cannot be held, as a matter of law, to give rise to liability as dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

---

Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

February 05, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On January 27, 2015, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, in Eriksson v. Nunnink (Case No. E057158), held a release of liability between Decedent and Defendant was enforceable as a defense to the Decedent's Parents' wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED") claims. In Eriksson, the Court concluded that on the basis of the signed release agreement, Defendant did not owe a duty of care to Decedent and thus could only be liable for Decedent's death if caused by the Defendant's gross negligence. The Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish gross negligence and affirmed the lower court's judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin and Whitney L. Stefko Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

November 10, 2016 — James Nash – Bloomberg
A costly battle over development in Beverly Hills, California, ended with voters rejecting a hotel owner’s proposal to combine two planned condominium towers into a single building that would have loomed over the wealthy Southern California enclave. With 44 percent in support and 56 percent against, Beverly Hills voters turned down plans by Beny Alagem, who owns the Beverly Hilton and is building an adjacent 170-room Waldorf Astoria, to develop a single 26-story tower next to the hotels, instead of eight- and 18-story buildings that were approved by the city council and a voter referendum in 2008. Alagem’s plan sets aside the remaining 1.7 acres (0.7 hectares) for a public park and gardens. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg

---

Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

February 14, 2022 — Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations to Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

January 23, 2023 — Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt, LLP
Nine Gibbs Giden partners have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list for the third year in a row! Congratulations to partners Jason Adams Barbara Gadbois Sara Kornblatt William Locher Christopher Ng (Managing Partner) Glenn Turner, III Ted Senet Richard Wittbrodt Philip Zvonicek Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

May 16, 2022 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

---