CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Brenda Radmacher to Speak at Construction Super Conference 2024

November 05, 2024 — Brenda Radmacher - The Construction Seyt
Brenda Radmacher, partner in Seyfarth’s Construction group, will present and moderate panels at the 38thAnnual Construction Super Conference 2024 on December 9-11. The conference is recognized as the preeminent construction conference developed for mid to senior-level professionals working in legal and commercial construction markets. Panel – Looking Around Corners: Emerging Trends and Proactive Solutions Brenda will co-present a panel on innovative ways to engage experts in construction disputes, focusing on early expert involvement to aid in risk management, issue analysis, mitigation, and documentation for potential litigation. Panel – Top 10 Issues to Address in Your ADR Process for a Better Solution in Construction Disputes Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@seyfarth.com

---

Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

July 30, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed. California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible. But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

April 06, 2011 — Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis

On February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.



The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.

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

---

Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Last year, the sculpture “How I Roll” was supposed to be doing its rolling at Central Park from June through August of last year, but the exhibit was taken down a month early, over concerns that the welding had rendered the moving piece “structurally unsound and unsafe.” Now the Public Art Fund is suing the company hired to do the welding. Titon Builders of Lake Park, Florida was supposed to do the welding, but they subcontracted the work to Tru-Steel Corp. of Fort Pierce, Florida. The Public Art Fund is claiming that Titon’s contract obligated them to do the fabrication, not subcontract it. Jeffrey Klein, a lawyer for the Public Art Fund, said, “it’s sad that it had to be taken down because of shoddy workmanship.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party breaches a non-compete agreement (with a non-solicitation clause), the non-breaching party typically moves for a temporary injunction. The breaching party is the party that signed the non-compete agreement, such as a former employee or consultant that agreed not to solicit its employer’s customer lists or referral sources upon leaving. The non-breaching party or the party moving for the temporary injunction is the party that is looking to protect its trade secret customer lists or referral sources, such as the employer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

December 29, 2020 — Robert Dennison - Traub Lieberman
In American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2020 WL 5630017 (Sept. 21, 2020), the Northern District of California of the United States District Court had occasion to consider whether allegations in an underlying complaint triggered a duty to defend and a late notice defense to coverage. The underlying actions were a suit against the City of Walnut Creek for damages from flooding allegedly caused by the City’s failure to develop and maintain its storm drains.The City settled the cases then sued its liability insurers who issued its coverage in the period 1968 to 1986 for indemnification of the amounts spent to defend and settle the cases.The published decision involved three Travelers’ policies issued to the City between 1968 and 1976, as to which Travelers sought summary judgment as to the lack of coverage in its policies. The district court first found that the definition of an “occurrence” in the policies, in one policy “an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which causes injury to person or damage to property during the policy period” and in the other two “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the period this policy is in effect, in bodily injury or property damage,” fell within the rule of Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, that injury or damage during the policy period must occur in order for the policy to be triggered.The court agreed with Travelers that while there were allegations of flooding for many years, the only claims/allegations of property damage were for the period 2000 and later.Therefore the property damage coverage in the policies was never triggered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

---

Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

December 07, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Casey L. Coffey - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts. In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable. Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

---

Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

August 30, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In 2015, Hall County (Georgia) brought legal action against Selective Insurance Company of America, Inc., the surety company for contractor Ruby Forrest. Hall County had contracted Ruby Forrest to complete and maintain sidewalk systems within three residential subdivisions that Ruby Forrest owned and was developing. Ruby Forrest did not complete the work as promised, and Hall County brought action against the contractor’s surety to recover under performance / maintenance bonds for uncompleted work and to assert bad faith claim for punitive damages and attorney fees. Selective Insurance did not dispute that it had issued the bonds, that Ruby Forrest did not complete the sidewalk systems within the bond periods or their extensions, or that Hall County provided Selective Insurance with timely notice of Ruby Forrest’s failure to complete the work. Instead, Selective Insurance asserted that the original claim by Hall County was time-barred under a provision in the bonds that stated that “the Issuer will have no more liability after” the expiration date of the bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---