CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

September 28, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's motion to reconsider an order granting the insurer summary judgment challenges the insured's theory it was an additional insured was rejected by the federal district court. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Superior Labor Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133127 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017). The court previously granted Lexington Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, finding Allied Shipyard, Inc. was not an additional insured and was not entitled to a defense in the underlying actions. On reconsideration, Allied argued the court ruled it was not a "certificate holder" under the Lexington policy, but Allied was not given the opportunity to conduct discovery with respect to whether it was a "certificate holder." Summary judgment was granted before Allied answered Lexington's amended complaint in intervention. Allied submitted its answer could have raised a genuine issue of material fact because it was entitled to coverage under the policy if it was a certificate holder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

October 27, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

Manhattan’s Property Boom Pushes Landlords to Sell Early

August 26, 2015 — Sarah Mulholland – Bloomberg
Manhattan property owners are cashing out ahead of schedule. With New York real estate values and rents surging, owners of commercial properties acquired as recently as a year ago are already seeking buyers. In the case of one Midtown site, the developer scrapped construction plans to sell an empty plot of land. There’s so much buyer demand that in some situations it’s more opportune for landlords to sell rather than follow through on plans for redevelopment or filling buildings with new tenants. A record $29.4 billion of Manhattan property deals were completed in the first half of 2015, according to brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc., part of a five-year real estate rally that’s pushed prices to new highs in big U.S. cities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Mulholland, Bloomberg

---

Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

June 08, 2020 — Kristopher M. Stockberger - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois' Labor & Employment Blog
1. The Devil’s in the Details Under Texas law, for a non-compete agreement to be enforceable, it must meet strict requirements as to timing, geography, and the type of conduct that it prohibits. While courts have enforced agreements for between one and two years, your situation could be subject to a shorter time period. If the geographical scope of the agreement is too broad or vague, that could render the agreement unenforceable. Also, the type of conduct prohibited by your agreement should be tied to the specifics of your business, because categorical barriers to other employment are often not enforced. If an employer knowingly instructs an employee to enter an overbroad non-compete agreement, the employer runs the risk of paying the employee’s attorneys’ fees. 2. Timing on the Front End If an employee has been with an employer for years and the employer suddenly decides to have her sign a non-compete without any other meaningful change in the employee’s role, then the agreement will probably not be enforceable, unless the employee receives “consideration.” In this context, consideration is something of value, other than money or benefits, which the law deems to warrant protection by a non-compete agreement. For example, allowing an employee to learn the secret formula to Coca-Cola or to gain access to an employer’s confidential financials constitutes legally sufficient consideration given to an employee in exchange for the employee’s promises in a non-compete agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristopher M. Stockberger, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Stockberger may be contacted at Kris.Stockberger@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

April 06, 2016 — Suzanne Prybella – White and Williams LLP
In Pennsylvania, pursuant to the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act (53 P.S. §7293(a)) (the Act), the owner of a property sold under a tax or municipal claim may redeem the sold property at any time within nine months after the date of acknowledgment of the sheriff's deed by, in general, paying the amount of the debt. However, there is a caveat contained in the Act with respect to vacant property, which states that “there shall be no redemption of vacant property by any person after the date of the acknowledgment of the sheriff's deed.” (53 P.S. §7293(c)). In Brentwood Borough School District v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 111 A.3d 807 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), a case of first impression before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the court addressed the definition of “vacant property” under the Act and the timing of a petitioner to invoke the right of redemption with respect to vacant property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Suzanne Prybella, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Prybella may be contacted at prybellas@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

BusinessWire reports that the Chelsea Court Homeowners Association has settled their construction defect case for $5.4 million. That works out to $169,000 per unit, which BusinessWire describes as “California’s largest per-unit recovery known to be on record to date.”

Most of the money in the settlement is coming from insurance companies for the builder and thirteen subcontractors. Issues included roof and window leaks, deck failures, and unsafe walkways.

Read the full story...

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

---

U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

January 17, 2022 — Stephen E. Irving, Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson
The United States Supreme Court today stayed enforcement of the OSHA emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring employers with 100 or more employees to require employees either be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The ruling immediately stops enforcement of the rule which had gone into effect on January 10, 2022. Today’s order raises significant doubt as to whether the ETS requirement will ever take effect in its current form. A 6 to 3 majority of the Supreme Court justices issued the profound statement that the parties opposed to the rule “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate.” The Court went on to state that the OSH Act does not authorize the agency to “set . . . broad public health measures,” such as the found in the current emergency standard. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

October 15, 2024 — Melissa Kenney - White and Williams LLP
In Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects. In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

---