Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

October 22, 2014 — Paula Sambo and Sabrina Valle – Bloomberg
Brazil’s biggest construction companies are leaving bondholders with losses in the wake of allegations they bribed Petroleo Brasileiro SA to win contracts. Queiroz Galvao SA’s $700 million of notes due 2019 have dropped 2.5 percent since Oct. 9, when the Department of Justice made available video in which former Petrobras head of refining Paulo Roberto Costa alleged that builders formed a cartel to overcharge for projects and divert money to politicians. OAS SA’s $875 million of 2019 notes have slumped 1.9 percent in that span, versus a 0.1 percent loss for emerging markets. Ms. Sambo may be contacted at psambo@bloomberg.net; Ms. Valle may be contacted at svalle@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paula Sambo and Sabrina Valle, Bloomberg

Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

May 24, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

March 01, 2011 — Marisa L. Saber

In a report published earlier this week Marisa L. Saber writes about the implied warranty of habitability in the context of construction defect litigation. The piece speaks of the difficulties in alleging tort theories against builders and vendors in light of Illinois’ expansion of the economic loss doctrine, and how the implied warranty of habitability may provide another avenue for recovery.

Read Full Story...

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

New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction spending in New York City is expected to reach $31.5 billion this year, which would be the first time has exceeded $30 billion since 2006. Further , construction spending is projected to grow to $37 billion in 2015. During that same period, construction jobs are expected to grow from 120,000 to 130,000. Richard Anderson, the president of the New York Building Congress noted that “just five years after the worst downturn since the Great Depression, the city’s construction industry finds itself on the brink of yet another building boom.” Much of the increase is due to new residential construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

July 15, 2019 — Alan Rider - Engineering News-Record
All coastal cities in the U.S. face some potential threat from sea-level rise, but areas around San Francisco Bay may be more vulnerable than previously thought according to a recent study by Arizona State University’s Manoochehr Shirzaei and UC Berkley’s Roland Bürgmann published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Rider, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

January 23, 2023 — Robert A. Henry & Emily R. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Arizona Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the scope of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (the “implied warranty”) in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors that provides clear guidance of the law in this area, specifically on the issue of whether the implied warranty can be waived or disclaimed. It is also an interesting and helpful read for those who engage in new home residential sales and real estate transactions generally. The case: Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022). The takeaway holding: the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability cannot, under any circumstances, be disclaimed or waived. From a practice perspective, the foregoing is likely all one needs to ultimately know. However, the majority opinion (authored by Justice Timmer) and the dissent (authored by Justice King, and joined by Justice Bolick) are in these authors’ opinions worth a read for those who want a better understanding of the contours of how “public policy” plays into the analysis of the enforceability of contract terms, especially in the real estate context and even more particularly in connection with contracts for the sale of new homes. The careful analysis of both the majority opinion and the dissent provides an excellent history of the implied warranty, the public policy behind it, and its scope and application in the context of competing public policies, most notably the freedom to contract. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. Henry, Snell & Wilmer and Emily R. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com Ms. Parker may be contacted at eparker@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

August 01, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Based on new information … your arbitration award is thrown out! So said the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a district court’s vacatur of the award based upon the award having been procured by fraud. The lower court ruled as it did notwithstanding the fact that the action seeking to have the arbitration award vacated was filed and served beyond the three months allowed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 12. The party attacking arbitration award alleged that during the course of the arbitration hearing, a witness whose testimony was been handled remotely by videoconference was being inappropriately aided: the witness was being instructed remotely – by texting – by the corporate representative for his company, who was entitled to sit in on all portions of the arbitration hearing. 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

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES