Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

February 27, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law

November 21, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to workers compensation law, as a contractor, there are a couple of important considerations. One, you will be deemed a statutory employer. And two, you want your subcontractors (and, of course, yourself) to have workers compensation insurance so that you can enjoy the protection of workers compensation immunity. Workers compensation immunity provides immunity to an employer (i.e., a statutory employer) by workers compensation insurance becoming the exclusive form of liability. A recent non-construction case, Bar-Harbour Tower Condominium Association, Inc. v. Bellorin, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D2114a (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), illustrates the importance of these considerations. Here, a condominium association per its governing documents (i.e., declaration of condominium) was authorized to contract for valet parking services for its unit owners. An employee of the valet company (hired by the association) got hurt and sued the association. The association argued it should be deemed a statutory employer under workers compensation law and, as such, entitled to workers compensation immunity. The trial court disagreed, and the association appealed. The Third District Court of Appeal held the association was the statutory employer and, thus, workers compensation immunity did apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered

October 21, 2024 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
In a period of 16 months, four dams built between 1903 and 1962 came down as part of a monumental effort to clear 35 miles of the Klamath River spanning Oregon and California. The project owner, the Klamath River Renewal Corp., describes it as the largest dam removal effort in U.S.—and possibly world—history. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Toll Brothers has announced that their fourth-quarter net income is $2.35 per share, which they attribute in part to an income tax benefit. Their revenue, at $632.8 million, easily exceeded analysts’ projections of $565.1 million. Additionally, their number of signed contracts jumped seventy percent while their cancellation rate dropped nearly half to 4.9 percent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, stated that California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7031 has often been described as draconian, harsh, and unjust—but still enforceable. The section does two things: first, it “prohibits unlicensed or improperly licensed contractors from suing to recover compensation for construction work requiring a license,” and second, it “permits property owners to sue such contractors for disgorgement of all compensation paid for such work.” According to Murai, the “strict enforcement of Section 7031” is thought to ensure “that contractors meet the minimum qualifications necessary for licensure.” Murai analyzed the case E. J. Franks Construction, Inc. v Sahota, which “carved out a limited exception to Section 7031 for contractors who form business entities and transfer their existing contractor’s license to such entities.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Kahana Feld LLP Senior Attorney Rachael Marvin and Partner Dominic Donato Obtain Complete Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Labor Law Claims on Summary Judgment

August 19, 2024 — Rachel Marvin - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld attorneys Rachael Marvin and Dominic Donato secured summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 claims asserted against their client, a general contractor of a housing project in Orange County, New York. The case involved a construction accident in which plaintiff fell while traversing a ramp, which was placed across an eight-foot-deep excavation trench. Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor and was part of a crew performing the framing work on the project. The accident occurred when he exited his work area by walking across a ramp that was placed across the excavated trench, when the ramp gave way and plaintiff fell into the excavation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachel Marvin, Kahana Feld
Ms. Marvin may be contacted at rmarvin@kahanafeld.com

Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

November 06, 2018 — Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis & Ashley Kellgren - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
The State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions. Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis and Ashley Kellgren Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES