CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Supreme Court Holds that Design Immunity Does Not Protect a Public Entity for Failure to Warn of Dangerous Conditions

June 26, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Get ready for more street signage. The California Supreme Court, in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, has held that Government Code section 830.6, which protects public entities from claims alleging dangerous conditions on public property if the design was approved by a public agencies’ legislative body or their designee, does not shield a public entity from claims that the public entity should have warned the public of known dangers. We wrote about the Tansavatdi case a while back when it was before the Court of Appeals. The case involves a very sad set of facts. A young boy was killed by a semi-trailer while waiting at a stoplight on his bicycle in Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The area where the boy was killed did not have a bicycle lane although stretches of the same road did. The 2nd District Court of Appeal, on appeal from a motion for summary judgment, held that even if the public entity could establish that it was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the trial court should have considered whether the public entity should have been liable for failing to warn of a dangerous condition on public property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

December 09, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Water intrusion caused by a construction defect was not covered under the all risk policy’s ensuing loss provision. See Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123582 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2011).

Extensive water damage was discovered in the insureds’ home when a small hole in the exterior wall was being repaired. Chubb’s adjuster and an expert found water intrusion causing rot, mold, and damage to the home’s wood framing and insulation. Chubb denied coverage because water intruded through the roof and wall, resulting in gradual deterioration. The insureds filed suit.

The policy excluded coverage for construction defects, but insured "ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies."

The court agreed there was a prima facie case for coverage because the home suffered a physical loss.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Musings: Moving or Going into a New Service Area, There is More to It Than Just…

July 16, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we would like to welcome back (again) Sean Lintow Sr. (@The_HTRC) Sean has over 20 years in the construction and project management fields. As many know he pulled up stakes and moved to the State of Illinois almost a year ago where he still focuses on the “green” / energy efficiency markets by helping builders & trade professionals to improve their methods not only locally but nationally. Currently he is RESNET Rater, AEE CEA (Certified Energy Auditor), ENERGY STAR partner & verifier, EPA Indoor airPLUS verifier, Level 2 Infrared Thermographer, Volunteer Energy Rater for Habitat for Humanity, and Builders Challenge Partner & Verifier. I would like to thank Chris for inviting me back as a guest poster. One item that struck a bell with me lately was his recent post for contractors considering work in another state is to check that states contractor licensing laws. Part of me was just saying – ahh if it were just that simple… With that in mind, here are some additional thoughts of mine along with advice picked up and given to others considering a move to greener pastures in another state, another town or maybe even taking that sweet little project outside of your current area that seems too good to pass up. Licensing: Yep this is a no-brainer – but unfortunately, as I pointed out in a 2012 piece it isn’t always that simple as in some cases the state may not require licensing and instead leave it to the towns which can be real fun to figure out. How long will it take to obtain? Ahh, but what about other licenses that a township may require? Working on a pre-78 house – is the state a self-managed one or is your current EPA certificate and training good enough? (Living in a self-managed state but working on an Indian Reservation? Well you will need to be EPA certified) Does the area require a specialty Storm Water Certificate or??? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

August 19, 2024 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Time is of the essence in any construction project. So, if a dispute arises at any point, business owners generally wish to avoid the chance of a time-consuming case going to court. Can California construction businesses manage these disputes effectively outside of court? It is possible in some cases. Business owners should carefully consider these three steps. 1. Go Back to the Contract Even if the contract is at the center of the dispute, it is important to refer to any details regarding dispute resolution included within the document. It is common for contracts to have some form of a dispute resolution clause. In such a case, both parties should follow the steps outlined in that agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

---

Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit

October 07, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
The state of Rhode Island recently filed a lawsuit against 13 companies that provided design, construction, and inspection services over the past ten years (the extent allowed by the applicable statute of limitations) to the Washington Bridge, which carries I-195 between East Providence and Providence. The bridge was abruptly closed in December 2023 following the discovery of alleged fractured steel tie-downs critical to the bridge’s stability and additional deterioration in cantilever beams throughout the bridge. Before the closure, approximately 90,000 vehicles per day traveled over the bridge. The complaint alleges that the defendants, the majority of which are experienced, industry-leading firms in their respective fields, were negligent and breached their respective contracts with the State. The State contends that every company that worked on the bridge over the past ten years missed the serious structural conditions alleged. The lawsuit also claims that the State has suffered millions of dollars of damages since the bridge was closed and seeks indemnity and contribution from all defendants to the extent that the State may be liable to third parties in the future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP

---

Neighbors Fight to Halt Construction after Asbestos found on Property

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
SI Live reported that residents spoke out at the Staten Island, New York community board meeting to try to halt “construction taking place at former Mount Manresa Jesuit Retreat House property in Fort Wadsworth.” Barbara Sanchez, secretary of the Committee to Save Mount Manresa, stated that halting the construction is urgent now that asbestos has been discovered on the property. "We want a full stop-work order ... Everything being done around those buildings is being blown into our homes,” Sanchez said in the meeting, according to SI Live. “So I want testing for ... everything touched by the asbestos -- and our homes, before the work continues at Mount Manresa!" Jeanna Massimi, a resident of Fort Wadsworth, stated that people in the community are already dealing with health problems due to the construction work: “A lot of people where I live [are having] X-rays and are being tested for asbestos exposure. They can't have their bedroom windows open anymore. The dust is like soot -- it's thick. It's everywhere in the home. People are coughing, wheezing and hoarse. You end up feeling lethargic.” Mike Gilsenan, assistant deputy commissioner at the Department of Environmental Protection, said it was “highly unlikely any dust or fibers migrated off that site. That is the best I can tell you.” But SI Live reported that he added “that the process is ‘not foolproof.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

September 17, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Nebraska Court of Appeals has ruled that a home builder that fails to adequately compact the soil does not have insurance coverage to repair damages to the home caused by the settling soil. In “insurance speak”, there was no occurrence to trigger coverage. In this case, Cizek Homes, Inc. v Columbia National Insurance Company, a home builder contracted with a buyer to build a house. A lot was selected and the home was built. After the buyer moved in, the house started to settle, causing damage to the house. The buyer told the builder about these problems and the builder agreed to fix the problems. The builder also contacted its insurance company and requested coverage for the buyer’s claim. The insurer rejected the claim, determining that the buyer’s claim was not covered by the builder’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance. The insurer then filed suit asking the court to interpret the insurance policy and to determine whether the CGL insurance covered the claim. The court looked to the buyer’s allegations that the builder failed to construct the home in accordance with accepted construction and industry standards and that the builder was negligent in designing and constructing the home. The builder admitted that it was obligated to pay for the costs of repairs, but denied that it was negligent in constructing the home. 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

---

When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

June 28, 2021 — Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
New York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---