Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Jury Convicts Ciminelli, State Official in Bid-Rig Case

August 14, 2018 — Engineering News-Record
After a four-week trial but with less than two days of deliberation, a Manhattan federal jury convicted Louis Ciminelli, former head of the now-defunct Buffalo, N.Y., contractor LPCiminielli, and Alain Kaloyeros, the fired ex-head of SUNY Polytechnic Institute in Albany, N.Y., of fraud and conspiracy in a scheme to rig bids on a $750-million upstate New York manufacturing project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

CAPSA Changes Now in Effect

November 14, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
Back in June, I posted about changes coming to the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CAPSA), 73 P.S. Section 501, et. seq. The Act applies to virtually all private construction projects in Pennsylvania. As of last week (Oct. 10), those changes are effective. While there is some argument to the contrary, these changes are NOT retroactive and apply to all projects going forward from that date. To recap, here are some of the important changes you need to be aware of:

Contractual waivers. Parties cannot waive the applicability of the act through contract. Therefore, any clause in a contract purporting to waive the Payment Act’s applicability is void.
Suspension of work. Unpaid contractors and subcontractors have always enjoyed a common law right to suspend performance until payment was made. Now, they also have a statutory right to do so. Section 5 of the Payment Act ads a subpart (e) which states that an unpaid contractor or subcontractor can suspend performance without penalty if it is not paid.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Diana Olick of CNBC reported that builders are not keeping up with the housing demand due to a lack of supply of developed lots as well as the increasing price of available land. "You have to find the land, you've got to be able to buy it and you've got to persuade someone to let you develop it. The one you hear the most about is the last one," Paul Emrath, vice president of survey and housing policy research at the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), told CNBC. Olick wrote that “[l]and prices have actually surpassed their peak values in many markets where builders are particularly active, especially in Texas.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

February 15, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:

Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).

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

Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

September 03, 2019 — Michael Francis Lenhardt & Burks A. Smith, III - Traub Lieberman
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure. Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

January 15, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The policy's anti-concurrent causation clause preserved the possibility of coverage when the insurer's motion for summary judgment to disclaim its indemnity obligation for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy was overturned by the Second Circuit. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29821 (Oct. 23, 2018 2nd Cir. ) In 2012, Madelaine Chocolate suffered significant damage to its business due to storm surges created by Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate had an "all-risk" policy issued by Great Northern. Madelaine Chocolate filed a claim for property damage of approximately $40 million and business income loss and extra operation expenses of $13.5 million. Great Northern denied most of the claim, reasoning that the storm surge damage was excluded under the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

March 29, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Former President Obama’s so-called “Blacklisting” rule was short-lived. On Monday, President Trump signed a joint resolution eliminating the rule, which had required bidders on federal projects with a value in excess of $500K to report state and federal labor and safety violations within the past three years. The Blacklisting rule, also known as the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order 13673, only went into effect in October 2016. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES