Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

December 19, 2018 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The multibillion-dollar completion of a nuclear unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s unfinished 1,260-MW Bellefonte plant in Alabama is in limbo after the federal power producer refused to complete its sale to Nuclear Development LLC, which has since filed a breach of contract complaint in federal district court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the insured was only entitled to the actual cost value of his loss, not the replacement cost. Lytle v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 756 (Sept. 30, 2015). The insured's home was built around 1903. On June 21, 2011, the insured discovered damage to his home because of a severe storm. He made a claim with his insurer, Country Mutual. The policy contained a depreciation holdback provision. The provision said the insurer would not pay more than the actual cash value until the actual repair or replacement was complete. If the insured elected to accept actual cash value, he would have one year from the date of the loss to repair or replace the damaged property and request the difference between the actual cash value and the replacement cost. 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

Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

March 28, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction defect lawsuits can be complex multi-party disputes, especially when the plaintiff is doing what is necessary to maximize recovery. This means the plaintiff may sue multiple defendants associated with the defects and damage. For example, the owner (e.g., plaintiff) may sue the contractor, subcontractors, design professionals, etc. due to the magnitude of the damages. In many instances, the plaintiff is suing multiple defendants for overlapping damages. The law prohibits a plaintiff from double-recovering for the same damages prohibiting the windfall of a plaintiff recovering twice for the same damages. Perhaps this sentiment is straight common sense, but this sentiment is a very important consideration when it comes to settling with one or more of the defendants, while potentially trying the construction defect case as to remaining defendants. Analysis and strategy is involved when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case (and, really, for any type of case). Time must be devoted to crafting specific language in the settlement agreements to deal with this issue. Otherwise, the settlement(s) could be set-off from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants. The recent decision in Addison Construction Corp. v. Vecellio, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D625(a) (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) details the analysis and strategy required when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case, and the concern associated with a trial court setting-off the settlement amount from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

June 26, 2023 — Jeremy S. Macklin & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jeremy Macklin and Associate Danielle Kegley obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”), in a matter brought before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In the underlying case, an injured employee sued various companies, and their agents, for injuries he sustained on a construction project. The insureds, one of the defendant companies and its employee, sought coverage for the underlying lawsuit under a professional liability policy issued to that company by Admiral. The policy at issue provided coverage for the company and its employees, for negligent acts or omissions committed in the rendering of “professional services,” defined as services “involving specialized training and skill while in the pursuit of” mechanical and process engineering. After initially defending the insureds, Admiral filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Court to declare that the company has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in the underlying lawsuit and to allow Admiral to immediately withdraw its defense of the insureds. Admiral argued there is no coverage under the professional liability policy, as the underlying lawsuit does not contain allegations that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries arose from the rendering of or failure to render “professional services.” The insureds argued that since they were hired as mechanical and process engineers for the project, that any lawsuits against them must necessarily arise from their “professional services.” Further, the insureds asked the Court to disregard the express allegations in the underlying lawsuit concerning their role on the project as a general contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chicago Criticized for Not Maintaining Elevator Inspections

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Crain’s Chicago Business, “as few as a fifth of elevators get the required annual checkup,” Chicago Inspector General Joe Ferguson claimed. Ferguson audited the roughly 5,100 buildings that city inspectors were assigned to inspect elevators, and found that only 965 were actually inspected, reported Crain’s Chicago Business. Furthermore, “when problems were found in inspections conducted by city personnel, they often were not fixed in a timely manner, again according to city records.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

December 03, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Alexander Giannetto for being selected as a “2024 Leaders of Influence in Law” by the San Diego Business Journal! To read and download the SDBJ publication, please click here. Alex Giannetto is a managing partner with Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O’Meara LLP’s San Diego office. He has extensive experience in all aspects of civil litigation handling liability matters including slip and falls, catastrophic injuries, wrongful death, traumatic brain injuries, landslides, and construction claims. He has obtained favorable trial results defending clients on personal injury and premises matters in San Diego and Los Angeles. He also has appellate experience. He is an AV-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell who has been voted Best of the Bar in San Diego as well as a Top Lawyer in San Diego. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

May 22, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
“It’s none of your business.” So said a construction surety resisting discovery of its underwriting file in the context of the surety’s affirmative $2 million indemnity claim (on a $25M bond), and a Missouri federal court agreed. In response to the surety’s indemnity suit, the defaulted principal contractor and additional corporate indemnitors offered up defenses of “lack of consideration and the doctrine of unclean hands, laches, waiver and/or estoppel, among others.” The indemnitors also issued written discovery to the surety seeking to obtain the surety’s underwriting file – which would reveal the underpinnings of the surety’s decision to issue the bond to the contractor – asserting “that the underwriting and due diligence documents are relevant to the[] lack of consideration defense. [Indemnitors] claim that ‘[t]his defense is based on Defendants' belief that Plaintiff did not conduct any reasonable inquiry into any Defendants' ability to pay or financial resources and therefore Plaintiff did not rely on the financial condition of each Defendant in determining whether to issue the bonds.’" Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

August 26, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action. “The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES