Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
West Deptford, New Jersey township redevelopment counsel Mark Cimino had spent a year arguing that the city should receive a $4 million reduction in construction costs due to “inadequate documentation provided by the bank, as well as receipts showing disbursement had ‘improperly’ been made toward uses other than construction,” according to a December 30th 2013 article in the South Jersey Times. However, a state appellate court upheld the ruling that “the township had no basis” to request the reduction. Now, Committeewoman Denice DiCarlo is “seeking a $10,000 refund on the attorney fees paid” to Cimino, the South Jersey Times reported on February 6th. “This entire matter has been a monumental waste of tax dollars, and I am angry that the entire township committee was misled by Mr. Cimino and induced to believe we had any reasonable chance of recovering loan proceeds from this lawsuit,” DiCarlo stated in a letter to Mayor Raymond Chintall. Not all committee members agree with DiCarlo. Committeeman Sam Cianfarini told South Jersey Times that “he still believed Fulton Bank owed it to West Deptford to answer for any funds put toward anything other than construction.” Cimino declared “that both the lawsuit and appeal were valid,” according to the February 6th article. He “accused DiCarlo of ‘playing politics.’” Read the full story, December 30th Article... Read the full story, February 6th Article... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

May 03, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs. Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

October 11, 2017 — Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne & Jonathan Woy - White and Williams LLP
Lawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne and Jonathan Woy Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding

May 02, 2022 — J. Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
Last month marked the ten-year anniversary of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. On May 16, 2016, Title III of the JOBS Act was enacted, as the final piece of the JOBS Act, which gave businesses better access to crowdfunding tactics due to the ability to raise funds based on equity. Today, the JOBS Act and the impact of equity crowdfunding more generally has grown among multiple industries, from entertainment and technology to real estate and construction, and has come a long way from the non-equity crowdfunding of Kickstarter and Indiegogo. So what have been the powers that businesses gained from Title III of the JOBS Act? What has been the impact of the last ten years? Where do businesses go from here to better utilize this source of funding? WHAT ARE THE CROWDFUNDING POWERS GIVEN BY THE JOBS ACT? The main difference and change that the JOBS Act had on the field of "crowdfunding" was that for the first time, unaccredited investors could obtain equity stakes in businesses through online solicitations. However, a business was still required to go through the proper approved channels, like accredited crowdfunding portals to solicit and receive funding. Prior to this, crowdfunding had gotten more of an impact and reputation from platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, platforms that benefitted creative works or could act as a "pre-order" system with no guaranty of performance or quality of goods by the party seeking funds. Reprinted courtesy of J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

July 21, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Not to cast shade on your fun in the sun, but here’s an unusual, albeit sad and creepy, one for you. I’m bummed even writing about this one. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc., Case No. S236765 (June 4, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a general contractor’s commercial general liability carrier was obligated to defend and whether the carrier was liable for damages sustained by a young girl who was molested by an employee of the general contractor during construction at a school. At issue was whether the policy’s definition of an “occurrence,” which was defined, like most policies, as “an accident,” was triggered by the “intentional” and clearly not accidental act of the general contractor’s employee. 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

A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

April 06, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember all of my posts about how fraud and contract claims don’t usually play well in litigation? Well, as always with the law, there are exceptions. For instance, a well plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim will survive a dismissal challenge. A recent opinion out of the Alexandria division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sets out another exception, namely so called fraudulent inducement. In XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truland et al, the Court considered the question of whether both a tort and contract claim can coexist in the same lawsuit when the tort claim is based upon the information provided to the plaintiff when that information proves false. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law Musings
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2023

November 21, 2022 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2023 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

Metropolitan Tier 1

Insurance Law
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Orange County

Metropolitan Tier 2

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel

Jury Trials: A COVID Update

July 18, 2022 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
JURY TRIALS. Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., — Wn. App. 2d –, 505 P.3d 120 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). (1) Courts must ensure that juries are randomly selected to provide a fair and impartial jury. (2) While the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the systematic exclusion of distinctive groups from jury pools, Washington Courts’ COVID-19 policy to excuse people who were ages 60 and older and did not wish to report for duty was not a “systematic” exclusion. Raymond Budd developed mesothelioma after working with a drywall product called “joint compound” from 1962 to 1972. He sued Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and others for damages, contending that the company’s joint compound caused his illness. A jury returned a verdict in Budd’s favor and awarded him nearly $13.5 million. Kaiser appeals, claiming (1) insufficient randomness in the jury-selection process, (2) erroneous transcription of expert testimony, (3) lack of proximate causation, (4) lack of medical causation, (5) an improper jury instruction on defective design, (6) improper exclusion of sexual battery and marital discord evidence, (7) improper admission of post-exposure evidence, (8) improper exclusion of regulatory provisions, and (9) a failure to link its product to Budd’s disease. The Court of Appeals, Division 1, affirmed the verdict in favor of Budd. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES