Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In coming to their ruling on SB800, the California Court of Appeals looked to the legislative intent behind the law. Valentine Hoy, Timothy Hutter, and Erin Sedloff of Allen Matkins, in an article on the ruling, note that SB800 was written in response to Aas v. Superior Court, in which the court found that there was no remedy for construction defects that had not resulted in property damage. In the latest ruling, Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC, the court concluded that SB800 was passed to give homeowners a way to address defects that had not lead to damage. However, the court also concluded that the legislature did not intend for SB800 to be the only remedy. In Liberty Mutual, the insurance company sought reimbursement for claims it had paid on a homeowner’s claim after a fire sprinkler pipe burst. Liberty Mutual had insured the homeowner and sought repayment from the builder. Escrow had closed on the home in 2004, the pipe burst in 2008, and Liberty Mutual filed their claim in 2011, seven years after the close of escrow. But for plumbing issues, SB800 has a four-year statute of limitations. The writers describe California as “a hotbed for construction defect litigation.” Due to the Liberty Mutual ruling, developers now “cannot rely on the statutes of limitation set forth in SB800.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

April 20, 2020 — James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
Insurers across the country are nearly universally denying claims for business interruption stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those denials have in turn been met with swift litigation and potential legislative action. The first business interruption coverage lawsuit related to COVID-19 was filed in New Orleans on March 16. There are now no less than 13 such cases nationwide and many more are likely to follow. Further, legislatures in at least seven states are considering legislation that would, to varying degrees, mandate business interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, notwithstanding any seemingly contrary policy provisions. From the early stages of the pandemic, we have consistently advised our clients to promptly notify their insurers of all COVID-19 related losses, even where coverage appeared uncertain. The deluge of coverage litigation and contemplated legislation could drastically alter how insurers handle COVID-19 claims. But policyholders who have failed to satisfy policy notice requirements could miss out on the benefits of those changes. Therefore, policyholders would be ill-advised to sit on the sidelines and wait it out. Now, draft Federal legislation appears to add further impetus to instructions to “tender early.” The contemplated “Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020” would reportedly devote billions of dollars of federal funds through a Department of Treasury administered reinsurance program designed to offset losses sustained by insurers who actually pay business interruption losses. The legislation is still taking shape but would reportedly create “a Federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease.” President Trump is also reportedly pressuring insurers to provide business interruption coverage. The massive influx of federal funds and pressure from the White House could encourage insurers to reconsider denials of COVID-19 business interruption claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com

“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

October 24, 2023 — Laura Paris Paton - Gordon Rees Construction Law Blog
Could the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration. This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Paton may be contacted at lpaton@grsm.com

UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

December 08, 2016 — Aaron C. Schlesinger & Gregory R. Begg – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
As an update to our prior alert, on November 16, 2016, a federal judge in Texas issued a permanent injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) “persuader rule” – a preliminary injunction had been granted this past June. In rendering the permanent injunction, the court adopted the reasoning of its prior June 27, 2016 decision that granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on the rule. In the earlier decision, the court held that a temporary injunction was appropriate because the parties challenging the rule were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim […]. Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
A twenty-eighth person has plead guilty in the ongoing Las Vegas HOA scandal. Dax Louderman, who had been a construction company manager had acknowledged that he stole more than $495,000 from his former employers, Alpha 1 Construction and the Stone Canyon Homeowners Association, and further that he did not report this improper income on his tax returns. He has agreed to work with prosecutors and to pay $134,860 to the IRS. His actual sentencing will happen on June 24. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

November 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statutes Chapter 558 requires a Notice of Construction Defect letter (“558 Notice”) to be served before a construction defect lawsuit is commenced. This is a statutory requirement unless contractually waived for a completed project when latent defects or post-completion construction or design defects are pursued. A recent Florida case held that this statutory requirement is NOT intended to bar a lawsuit based on Florida’s ten-year statute of repose for construction defects IF the 558 Notice is timely served within the statute of repose period. After the expiration of the statute of repose period, a construction defect lawsuit can no longer be commenced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

May 30, 2018 — Erinn Contreras & Joy O. Siu - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES