CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions

January 04, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
In a much needed holiday gift for businesses and individuals who continue to be affected by COVID-19, Congress finally approved a $900 billion aid package follow-up to the CARES Act (the Winter Covid-19 Relief Bill), the several trillion dollar stimulus that was enacted early in the pandemic. The bill, part of the larger annual spending bill, will hopefully be signed into law by President Trump in the coming days although the President has indicated his disappointment about the small amount of direct relief to individuals included in the bill. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress by a veto proof majority and is expected to become law whether or not the President chooses to exercise his veto power. White and Williams has and will continue to provide more detailed updates on important components of the legislation, some of which address matters beyond COVID-19-related relief and support, including a new Paycheck Protection Program and tax deductibility of expenses paid for with PPP funds, extension and expansion of the employee retention tax credit, direct payments to individuals, additional unemployment assistance, restrictions on surprise medical billing, rental assistance and extension of the eviction moratorium, education funding, vaccine distribution, testing and tracing, and other healthcare funding. In the meantime, here is a brief overview of several pieces of the legislation: Paycheck Protection Program The Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill provides for $284 billion of funding for a new round of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by the CARES Act and allowed borrowers to receive forgivable loans to be used to retain employees and cover certain other basic operating expenses. New and existing businesses may participate in the program. However, eligibility for PPP Part II is more restrictive and targeted then the original PPP. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

September 09, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida, Berkley Insurance Co. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Case 1:19-cv-23059-KMW (S.D.Fla. July 22, 2024), provides valuable takeaways on schedule-based disputes between a general contractor and subcontractor on a high-rise project. In a nutshell, the general contractor’s original project schedule was abandoned due to project delays and the project wasn’t being built by any updated project schedule. The subcontractor claimed the general contractor was mismanaging the schedule putting unreasonable manpower and supervision constraints on it, i.e., it was working inefficiently. A bench trial was conducted and the Court found in favor of the subcontractor’s arguments. The Court found the general contractor had unrelated delays and that work activities were no longer methodical but, simply, piecemeal demands. The Court also rejected any inadequate manpower arguments finding the subcontract did not place any manpower requirements on the subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

July 11, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A new law in South Carolina, H 3375, fixes a loophole in that state’s statute of repose. State law puts a cap of eight years on construction defects, but the 2008 law that set that limit had a loophole that would allow for construction defect claims to start thirteen years after construction. The law also provides a cap on punitive damages.



The measure was backed by the Carolinas Association of General Contractors. Their spokesperson said that the legislation “increases our state’s ability to be economically competitive and helps protect our members from frivolous lawsuits.”

Read the full story…



Read South Carolina H 3375…

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

---

Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

January 14, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the trial court's issuance of summary judgment to the title insurer on a bad faith claim and remanded the case. Anastasi v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. App. LEXIS 585 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014). Fidelity issued a title insurance policy to Anastasi insuring that Alajos Nagy had good title to the property. The policy insured Anastasi against loss in the event a mortgage on the property executed by Nagy was not enforceable. Anastasi had loaned $2.4 million to Nagy and Nagy had executed the mortgage in favor of Anastasi as security for the loan. 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 U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

November 18, 2011 — Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

On November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.

The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).

The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

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

---

Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

January 20, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the federal Miller Act, if a claimant is NOT in privity with the prime contractor, it needs to serve a “notice of nonpayment” within 90 days of its final furnishing. In this manner, 40 U.S.C. 3133 (b)(2) states: A person having a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing the payment bond may bring a civil action on the payment bond on giving written notice to the contractor within 90 days from the date on which the person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which the claim is made. The action must state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed. The notice shall be served–

(A) by any means that provides written, third-party verification of delivery to the contractor at any place the contractor maintains an office or conducts business or at the contractor’s residence; or (B) in any manner in which the United States marshal of the district in which the public improvement is situated by law may serve summons.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

March 06, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In United States Aviation Underwriters v. Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC, No. 3D22-270, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207 (U.S. Aviation), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Appellate Court) considered whether the insurer for a commercial landlord could pursue subrogation against the landlord’s tenant. Based on the terms of the lease between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Court held that the landlord’s insurer could not pursue subrogation. In U.S. Aviation, the defendant, Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC (Turnberry Airport) leased space to an insured aircraft owner. The lease contained the following provision: TENANT agrees that all policies of insurance obtained by it in connection with the Space or as required hereunder shall contain appropriate waiver of subrogation clauses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Last July in Dearborn, Michigan, “torrential rain” caused flooding to hundreds of basements, according to Press & Guide. Of the 250 claims filed by residents, “the city determined that about 150 were caused by defects in its water or sewer lines. About 125 of the claims to be settled are for more than $3,000; 26 are for $3,000 or less.” Press & Guide reported that “Attorney Tarek Baydoun, who is representing some clients whose basements flooded, asked about recourse for ‘botched’ claims, and was concerned because the city hasn’t released the list of those with whom it is settling.” The Mayor, Jack O’Reilly, stated that the law department would release the list to the city council. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---