Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

July 11, 2022 — Scott Hennigh - Hennigh Law Corporation
LOS ANGELES, July 08, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Hennigh Law Corporation has announced that, after an over four-year battle in and out of court, a three arbitrator panel issued a 93-page interim award in finding Viracon, Inc., liable for $13,682,840 in direct damages for defrauding the owner of the premier office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe. The matter now enters the second phase, where the arbitration panel will rule on the amount of punitive damages to assess, as well as attorney fees and interest. Scott Hennigh, trial attorney, states, "The California construction industry is very robust with high standards. The arbitration panel appears to have recognized that California law does not tolerate large out-of-state companies misleading customers. They appear poised to send a message to Viracon about its lack of corporate responsibility." The premier Class-A office building in Burbank, California, The Pointe, serves high-end tenants in entertainment industries such as Warner Brothers. Constructed in 2009, the 13 exterior curtain wall of the 13-story building is encased in seamless glass panels. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Hennigh, Hennigh Law Corporation
Mr. Hennigh may be contacted at Scott.hennigh@hennighlaw.com

Insurer Ordered to Participate in Appraisal

March 27, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insured's request for an appraisal was timely and ordered the insurer to participate. Cloisters of Naples, Inc v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6884 (M.D. Flag. Jan. 13, 2023). A hurricane damaged Cloisters, a condominium. Cloisters made a claim under its commercial insurance policy with Landmark. Landmark acknowledged coverage but failed to pay what Cloisters thought was needed. Cloisters sued. The policy had a standard appraisal provision, but another clause had a suit litigation provision requiring a request for appraisal within two years after physical loss to the property. The dispute was whether Florida law, allowing appraisal clauses to be valid for 130 years, or Georgia law, which had no such extension on requesting an appraisal. Landmark contended the contract was formed in Georgia, so its law should apply. Florida followed the lure of lex loci, which provided that the law of the jurisdiction where the contract was executed governed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

June 28, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

According to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.

In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

August 24, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc., 50 Cal.App.5th 216 (June 10, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of six subcontractors with respect to an equitable subrogation lawsuit filed by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”). St. Paul filed the lawsuit after defending Pulte Home Corp. (“Pulte”) against two construction defect lawsuits. The lawsuit contended that St. Paul was entitled to seek recovery of defense costs incurred on behalf of Pulte based on equitable subrogation. St. Paul relied on the indemnity clauses in each of the subcontracts, and argued that the subcontractors had breached their contracts with Pulte. As such, each subcontractor was obligated to pay an equitable share of the defense of the construction defect lawsuits relating to their work on the homes at issue in such lawsuits. The trial court ruled against St. Paul and held that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs did not “cause” the homeowners’ claims, such that there was no causal connection supporting a claim for equitable subrogation. In addition, the trial court found that “equitable subrogation was an all-or-nothing claim, meaning it required a shifting of the entire amount of defense costs to the subcontractors on a joint and several basis and did not allow for an apportionment of costs among the defendant subcontractors.” In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal reasoned that St. Paul stood in the shoes of Pulte and was limited to pursuing recovery from the subcontractors based on the same rights as afforded to Pulte under the subcontracts. The Court of Appeal noted that St. Paul was seeking reimbursement of defense costs from the subcontractors based on the theory that they were contractually liable for paying an equitable share of defense costs. The Court of Appeal also noted that St. Paul’s claim was not premised on the contention that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs caused the homeowners’ claims. Rather, St. Paul’s claim was premised on the subcontractors’ breach of their defense duty owed to Pulte under the indemnity clauses in their subcontracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

Defending Against the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine – Liability Considerations

February 14, 2022 — Rina Clemens - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
A doctrine of limited applicability, res ipsa loquitur, stands for the proposition that the “things speaks for itself.” This doctrine allows a plaintiff to shift their evidentiary burden of proof to the defendant where a court can infer negligence from the fundamental nature of an accident or injury. We’re noticing a dangerous trend of more plaintiffs seeking to apply this doctrine in liability cases and clients need to know how to defend themselves. When faced with a person claiming that they sustained injuries while on your property, ask yourself: did your business have exclusive control of the instrumentality plaintiff alleges caused their injury? Would the accident have occurred without the negligence of the one in control of the instrumentality? Reprinted courtesy of Rina Clemens, Traub Lieberman Ms. Clemens may be contacted at rclemens@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

March 06, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
It is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts. THE COURTS OF APPEAL The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al. On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. 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

The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The trial involving the Las Vegas Harmon Hotel, which is currently being demolished piece by piece due to construction defects, is ready to begin six years after the defects were first discovered, reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It’s an unusual case for multiple reasons. The trial is expected to last a year, and the number of attorneys involved in the case required chairs to be removed from the galley to accommodate lawyer tables, which are wired with monitors and microphones. In addition, “two 80-inch monitors are being installed for the jury.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal further reported that “each party will have its own technology team to display the more than 3 million digitally stored pieces of evidence.” Michael Doan, the court’s information technology director, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the “paper list of that evidence fills more than 100 document-storage boxes.” The case “involves more than $400 million in damage claims.” Construction on the Harmon Tower was stopped after a “structural engineer hired by MGM Resorts determined the building was unsafe and could topple if an earthquake of a magnitude of 7.7 were to hit Las Vegas.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES