CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

April 03, 2013 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group

Death of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction

For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry.  Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible.  In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.

After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts.  Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California.  Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq.
William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

May 03, 2017 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (4/18/2017 – No. G053623), the Fourth Appellate District, in a 2-1 decision, considered two distinct issues: 1. Whether the attorney-client privilege for a confidential e-mail communication between a client and his attorney had been waived by the client’s inadvertent disclosure of the communication to a third party; and 2. Whether the opposing counsel’s failure to respect the claimed privilege as to the inadvertently produced document or to follow the rules for handling such documents set forth in State Compensation Ins. Fund v WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (State Fund) supported the trial court’s disqualification of counsel and his law firm. This case arose from an intra-family dispute over the deceased matriarch’s substantial investment holdings, a related probate matter, and two subsequent legal malpractice actions. The opinion sets forth in great detail the facts surrounding the claimed inadvertent disclosure by the client (i.e., the privilege holder) of the subject attorney-client e-mail communication, its subsequent dissemination to, and use by, the client’s family members, the ultimate receipt and review by an opposing family member’s counsel, the efforts by the client’s counsel to assert the privilege and “claw-back” the document, and in the face of this privilege claim, the opposing counsel’s extensive use of the document during discovery, including depositions, in the legal malpractice actions. The opposing counsel, who had received the subject document from his own client, had independently concluded that the clearly privileged document lost its privileged status, believing that the privilege had been waived either because of disclosure to third parties or that his obligation to return inadvertently disclosed documents only applied to those produced in litigation during discovery. As a result, the opposing counsel refused all demands for the return or destruction of the document and insisted upon continuing to use it. This dispute finally came to a head over two years after the client’s disclosure in the context of the client’s motion for a judicial determination that the document was privileged (which the trial court granted) and then a motion to disqualify the opposing counsel (which the trial court also granted); both decisions were eventually reviewed by the appellate court. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NYC Hires Engineer LERA for Parking Garage Collapse Probe

January 29, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The investigation into the collapse of a Lower Manhattan parking garage last April is still underway. A Jan. 2 notice published in The City Record identified LERA Consulting Structural Engineers RLLP as the engineering firm assisting with the probe. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

September 03, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Prompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time. West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

April 22, 2019 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
A partisan squabble over funds to help Puerto Rico continue its long recovery and rebuilding from two hurricanes in 2017 has tied up a wide-ranging spending package on Capitol Hill. At stake in the fight are hundreds of millions of dollars for reconstruction and related work around the U.S. Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

June 19, 2023 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (June 6, 2023) – Six Lewis Brisbois partners and three Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2023 USA rankings list. Kansas City & Wichita Managing Partner Alan L. Rupe and Phoenix Managing Partner Carl F. Mariano were both ranked Band 1 for “Labor & Employment – Kansas” and “Insurance – Arizona,” respectively. Phoenix Partner Gina M. Bartoszek was ranked Band 2 for “Insurance – Arizona.” Washington, D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton and Minneapolis Partner Tina A. Syring were both ranked Band 4 for “Environment – District of Columbia” and “Labor & Employment – Minnesota,” respectively. Additionally, Washington, D.C. & Fort Lauderdale Partner J. Mario Fontes, Jr. was ranked Band 5 for “Corporate/M&A & Private Equity – Florida: South.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

June 01, 2020 — Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella & Joshua Tumen - White and Williams
Businesses of every nature – including grocery stores, banks, daycares, gyms and restaurants – may face increasing liability claims from customers and third parties claiming to have been exposed to the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, while at their location. The novel virus raises issues as to whether businesses have a heightened duty of care to their customers, and what type of exposure businesses face if a customer claims to have been exposed to COVID-19 while at their premises. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Princess Cruise lines for gross negligence in allowing passengers to be exposed to COVID-19 on a cruise ship. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise ship was allowed to go out to sea knowing that it was infected from two previous passengers who came down with symptoms of COVID-19. It further claims that the passengers were not warned of the potential exposure either before or after they boarded the ship. In other news reports around the country, business owners have reported taking extraordinary precautions to prevent customers’ risk of contracting COVID-19. For example, one grocery store recently reported that it discarded $35,000 worth of food after a customer coughed on fresh produce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella and Joshua Tumen Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

September 28, 2017 — C. Lily Schurra & K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision that an insured bears the burden of establishing what portion of a jury verdict constitutes covered damages1. The case arose out of claims for property damage resulting from construction defects in a homebuilding project. The homeowners fired the construction manager, J. Barrows, Inc. (“JBI”), who then sued the homeowners in state court for unpaid fees (the “Underlying Action”). The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence. JBI’s commercial general liability insurer, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), agreed to defend JBI under a reservation of rights. Reprinted courtesy of C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Schurra may be contacted at cls@sdvlaw.com Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---