CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

March 07, 2014 — Brian Louis and Jeff Green - Bloomberg
In Flint, once a thriving auto-industry hub, excavators with long metal arms and shovels have begun tearing down 1,500 dilapidated homes in an attempt to lift the housing market. The demolitions in this Michigan city of about 100,000 people are part of the stepped up efforts by officials in several Midwestern states to rid their blighted neighborhoods of decayed housing that’s depressing prices. The funding for the excavator work comes from a surprising source -- the Hardest Hit Fund of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, created in 2008 to stabilize to the financial system. The $7.6 billion Hardest Hit Fund was intended to help troubled property owners avoid foreclosure and keep their homes. As foreclosures fall in most parts of the country, the fund is using the unspent $3.2 billion to remedy the crisis of abandoned homes. In Detroit alone, 70,000 dwellings, or about 19 percent of the total, may need to be torn down, according to the city. Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net. Mr. Green may be contacted at jgreen16@bloomberg.net. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Louis and Jeff Green, Bloomberg

---

Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “[T]he federal trial of former construction company boss Leon Benzer and five others in a massive scheme to take over Las Vegas-area homeowners associations” has been delayed to February 2015 by U.S. District Judge James Mahan. Defense attorneys “argued they needed more time to review thousands of pages of new documents provided by prosecutors.” The prosecutors did not object to the delay. Benzer and the other defendants face conspiracy and fraud charges in an HOA takeover scheme that allegedly occurred between 2003 and 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far

May 25, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams. The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic. Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

November 05, 2014 — Craig Martin - Construction Contractor Advisor
Whether a contractor will be liable to a second purchaser, even though the contractor never contracted with the second purchaser, varies state to state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Conway v. The Cutler Group, is the latest court to rule that a subsequent purchaser lacks privity and cannot pursue an action against the builder. In that case, the Conways purchased a home from the original owner. After living in the home for about two years, the Conways discovered water leaking around the windows. The Conways sued the builder, alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The builder defended the claim, asserting that it had not contracted with the Conways and thus had not provided any warranties to the Conways. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim. The first level of appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the warranty of habitability was intended to level the playing field between the builder and purchaser of a home and it should be extended to subsequent purchasers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed and refused to extend any warranties to subsequent purchasers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.



The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.



The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.



In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.



The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.



A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”



Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Differences in Types of Damages Matter

June 22, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the last 7 and a half years (yes I have been doing this for that long), I have often “mused” on various contractual provisions and their application. Why? Because the contract matters and will be enforced. Provisions like “no damages for delay” and “pay if paid” litter construction contracts and will be enforced if properly drafted. These types of clauses affect whether and what types of damages you as a construction company can collect. Of course, these clauses have their limitations. For instance, and as pointed out by my pal Matt DeVries at his great Best Practices Construction Law blog, not all damages that a subcontractor or general contractor may attribute to coordination or other scheduling related issues are “delay damages” to which a “no damages for delay” clause may apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

February 22, 2021 — Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note: Face Coverings OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart. Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

August 10, 2020 — Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski & Austin F. Smith - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance. Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski and Austin F. Smith Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at carbucci@hbblaw.com Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at asmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---