Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Writing under the pseudonym “Babbage,” a technology blogger at The Economist takes note of some of the depressing facts about America’s infrastructure. Babbage notes that most of the United States’ transportation infrastructure was “built in a furious burst of road construction during the 1950s and 1960s.” Citing a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, President Obama recently warned that “we’ve got about $2 trillion of deferred maintenance.” Some of this deferred maintenance can cost lives. The 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis killed 13 people and injured 145 others. The cost of fixing structural defects in the nation’s bridges was estimated at $32 billion in 2004. In that year, about 66,500 bridges were deemed structurally defective. Another 84,000 were termed “structurally obsolete,” meaning they could be used, but with restrictions on vehicle weight and speed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defects Checklist

July 18, 2018 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
Construction defects have existed since humans first began building structures, and will continue to be an occurrence into the future. For builder developers, contractors, and subcontractors, the specter of construction defects is a constant worry. Construction defect litigation is commonplace and can occur years after the construction project has been completed. This opens up an ongoing channel of risk and liability for construction contractors and project managers that are at risk of litigation far after they have completed a project. In this article, we’ll provide a helpful construction defects checklist that outlines the key avenues of risk and areas where construction defects litigation is most often focused. This checklist can help project managers, contractors, and subcontractors anticipate areas of their projects that may need extra attention or focus in order to ensure that they adhere to relevant local and state construction ordinances. Gaining a greater understanding of what construction defects are can provide insight into how construction litigation can prove beneficial for structure owners or contractors who received substandard work. Many clients may not understand that they have an avenue to seek redress in cases where faulty workmanship may have resulted in economic damages or safety concerns in their home, building, or another construction project. Understanding the scope of what a construction defect is, and the areas that are most commonly litigated is helpful to understand when construction defect litigation is a viable option to pursue redress. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
California Civil Code Section 2782 has been amended numerous times over the last several years. Essentially, Anti-indemnity statutes may not be fully effective for contracts entered into before January 1, 2009. Some developers and general contractors attempted to comply with the new law, and changed the indemnity provisions of their contracts post January 1, 2006. The time bracket, or zone of danger if you will, is between 1/1/06 and 1/1/09—during those three years California Civil Code §2782 was amended several times. After 1/1/09 Type I indemnity is gone in a residential construction context. The 2005 amendment to Civil Code §2782 rendered residential construction contracts entered into after 1/1/06 containing a Type I indemnity provision in favor of builders unenforceable; The 2007 amendment added contractors not affiliated with the builder to the list of contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision; However, the 2008 amendment changed the effective date to 1/1/09, dropped any mention of 2006, and added GCs, other subs, their agents and servants, etc., to the list of possible contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision[.] Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

February 18, 2020 — Scott Calkins & Anthony Gaeta - Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli; Mark Chapman - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli partners Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta obtained a trial victory when the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict against one plaintiff homeowner, and awarded the other homeowner less than $2,000, an amount well below the defendant’s pre-trial CCP 998 Offers to Compromise. One of the main issues in the case was the application of SB800 roofing standards. Plaintiffs’ roofing expert testified in deposition no water entered the structure or passed through a moisture barrier [Civ. Code §896(a)(4)], and no materials had fallen off the roof [§896(g)(11)]. In an attempt to circumvent the applicable performance standards, Plaintiffs argued Civ. Code §869(g)(3)(A), also known as the ‘useful life’ exception, applied because the various components of the roof (nailing pattern, tiles, vents, etc.) were installed in such a manner so as to reduce the useful life of the roof. Following pre-trial motions and objections made during Plaintiffs’ direct examination, the Court ruled Section 896(g)(3)(A) did not apply to a conventional roof, as it is not a “manufactured product” as defined in §896(g)(3)(C). Plaintiffs’ roofing claims were summarily dismissed and Plaintiffs’ expert was prevented from testifying. In contrast, the defense expert, Mark Chapman, was allowed to testify regarding his expert opinions as to the appropriate SB800 standard relative to each alleged defect and whether the standards were violated. The SB800 performance standards were included on the jury verdict form, and the jury found Mr. Chapman’s testimony compelling, which was a substantial factor in awarding only minor damages to one Plaintiff. For more information, contact Scott Calkins (scalkins@cslawoffices.com), Anthony Gaeta (ageta@cslawoffices.com) or Mark Chapman (mchapman@berthowe.com). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

January 06, 2016 — David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP
Residential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects. The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life. Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials. In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them. Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed. A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit. The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product. The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos. There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease. Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded. The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage. David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com. Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

December 23, 2023 — Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) anticipates proposing a new rule that would revise its “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in Fall 2023. The proposed rule would modernize DOI’s rarely used simplified Type A procedures for assessing damages for natural resource injuries tailored at sites involving minor releases of hazardous substances, with a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury occurring in either coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments (the “Type A Rule”). (See 88 Fed. Reg. 3373; see 43 C.F.R. Pt. 11 Subpt. D.) The Type A Rule was last updated in 1997. DOI previewed the proposal in January 2023 in its Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment’s (ORDA) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). In the ANPR, the ORDA surmised that the Type A Rule was rarely used in part because of its restricted scope, but also because “the model equation for each Type A environment is the functional part of the rule itself—with no provisions to reflect evolving toxicology, ecology, technology, or other scientific understanding without a formal amendment to the Type A Rule each time a parameter is modified.” Calling the existing rule “inefficient and inflexible,” the ORDA stated that its proposal to reformulate the rule “as a procedural structure” would “modernize the Type A process and develop a more flexible and enduring rule than what is provided by the two existing static models” (88 Fed. Reg. 3373). Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

October 19, 2017 — Jacquelyn M. Mohr – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Our hearts go out to those families and businesses who have suffered losses due to the recent fires, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. We hope that everyone in Sonoma, Napa, Orange County, and nationwide affected by these tragic events is somewhere safe. As someone who lost a house in a fire growing up and now is an attorney who helps both residential and business policyholders, there are a few pieces of wisdom I’d like to pass along to help prepare for the worst: 1) MAINTAIN DUPLICATES OF CRITICAL DOCUMENTS OFFSITE OR ONLINE After the fire, you’re going to need your insurance policies and other critical documents. While it’s usually possible to request copies, this can take weeks, which will hold up your claims process. We are fortunate enough to have the technology for cloud-based storage of key documents – like your insurance policy, insurance broker contact information, tax returns, life insurance policies, will, business plan, inventories, etc. – oftentimes for free. Maintaining these records onsite during your daily life and business operations is important, but so is taking the time and trouble to make sure you have a back-up offsite. It’s easy to do, and so much easier than trying to recreate it after the fact. 2) MAKE A RECORD OF YOUR PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS If you are lucky enough to still be in your home or business property, I strongly recommend that you take a video of your property and possessions to keep for your records. A digital inventory with receipts would be great – but a video log will also be very helpful later.

For your home: This includes the furniture, artwork, appliances, jewelry, electronics, collectibles, landscaping and custom features of the inside and outside of your house.
For your business: This includes your furniture and artwork, your inventory and your electronics.

Look into offsite back-ups of your important electronic data – whether documents, e-mails, insurance policies, inventory logs, accounting data, client correspondence, or pictures of your kids or grandkids. Why A Record Is Important in the Insurance Claims Process Though I hope no one has to deal with this, a video record will make it much easier in the event of a tragedy to deal with insurance claims for two reasons:

It is evidence to submit to the insurance company to show exactly what your property was like before disaster struck.
- For your home, you likely have a homeowner's insurance policy that covers your “3 bedroom, 2 bath, 2000 square foot home built in 1962,” but your insurer won’t know the quality of what is actually inside. It will be up to you to prove you had a brand new Viking stovetop, rather than a 20-year old Kitchenaid; custom built-in cabinets rather than Ikea furniture. (On this note, if you ever do any remodeling, be sure to tell your broker to make sure it's covered by your policy!)
- For your business, your policy will similarly be generic, and the insurer will similarly insist on evidence of your business inventory, sales orders, equipment, artwork, etc. in the event of a loss.

A video record will also help to jog your memory to create itemized inventories to submit to the insurance company. Creating an inventory of everything lost after a casualty can be the most difficult and emotional part of the rebuilding process. I encourage you to do anything you can do now to lessen the stress later. After a traumatic loss, it’s impossible to remember everything, so most people never collect their full insurance benefits. United Policyholders, an amazing non-profit resource for policyholders, has a great app and other online tools to help create your inventory. You can find the app and other helpful information at http://www.uphelp.org/

3) CHECK YOUR POLICY Even if you have not been personally affected by the recent disasters, these tragedies are an excellent reminder to check to make sure you are fully covered.

Make sure you understand what is covered under your policy, and get confirmation that you are covered for a total loss. Talk with your broker to make sure your policy limits make sense, including those for separate structures, personal property, and additional living expenses, which are usually a percentage of your dwelling coverage limit.
Check to make sure your personal property limits would cover your possessions– if you have a lot of artwork, jewelry, antiques, and other valuables, the standard limits might not be enough for you.
Consider this question: Does your additional living expense/business interruption coverage (aka the amount your insurance company will pay while your home or business property is being rebuilt) provide enough for your needs? Even if your limits/coverage made sense when you purchased the policy, things may have changed.

Jacquelyn Mohr is an associate in the Walnut Creek office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focusing in business litigation, insurance coverage, securities fraud and construction disputes. Jacquelyn can be reached at Jacquelyn.Mohr@ndlf.com or 925.988.3200.

About Newmeyer & Dillion

Read the court decision

Read the full story...

Jacquelyn M. Mohr, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP

Jacquelyn.mohr@ndlf.com