Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Picketing Threats

July 09, 2019 — Jerry Morales - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction
Letters from unions to owners, general contractors and other contractors informing them of the union’s dispute with one or more of the subcontractors, working at a common construction project site (or common situs), and of the union’s plans to engage in “public informational campaigns” at the site, in furtherance of the dispute, may constitute unlawful threats of secondary boycott. Unions often send letters to various employers that share a common construction project site, informing them that the union has a dispute with one or more of the subcontractors working or scheduled to work at the same site. In labor law, the employers that do not have a dispute with the union are referred to as “neutral employers,” in contrast with the employers with which the union has the dispute, referred to as “primary employers.” In the letters, the unions typically describe the reason for the labor dispute (e.g., alleged failure to pay “area standards”), request that the neutrals use their “managerial discretion” not to allow the primary employers to perform work at the project site until the dispute is resolved, and inform that the union will engage in public information campaigns against the primary employer at the common situs. The “public information campaign” is described in the union’s letter as including banner displays, distribution of handbills, picketing and other demonstration activity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jerry Morales, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Morales may be contacted at jmorales@swlaw.com

White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

July 06, 2020 — Christian Singewald & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLP
The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

"Multiple Claims" Provisions on Contractor's Professional Liability Policy Creates a Trap for Policyholders

May 24, 2021 — Michael V. Pepe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In Berkley Assurance Company v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., 465 F.Supp.3d 370 (S.D.N.Y., 2020), professional liability insurer Berkley sued its insured, Hunt, a construction management firm, seeking a declaration that it did not owe Hunt a duty to defend and indemnify against breach of contract claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Berkley’s motion for summary judgment and denied Hunt’s motion for partial summary judgment. Among other things, the court held that the policy’s automatic extended reporting period did not apply to Hunt’s first claim. The multiple claims provision barred Hunt’s second claim because the claims were related. The court’s holding creates a potential trap for policyholders who wait to see how a claim develops before reporting it to their insurance carrier. This case demonstrates that waiting to see how a claim develops can result in a loss of coverage. Policyholders need to be aware of this trap and report all claims and circumstances immediately. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com

South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

September 18, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fourth Circuit certified the following question to the South Carolina Supreme Court: Does South Carolina law support application of the "at issue" exception to the attorney-client privilege such that a party may waive the privilege by denying liability in its answer? In Re: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17910 (4th Cir. June 28, 2018). Mt. Hawley insured Contravest Construction Company under an excess commercial liability policy from July 21, 2003 to July 21, 2007. During this period, Contravest constructed a development in South Carolina. In 2011, the Owners Association sued Contravest for alleged defective construction. Mt. Hawley denied tenders to defend or indemnify. Contravest ultimately settled the case. 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

Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Louisiana couple has sued the company that raised their home, claiming that faults with the work were revealed after Hurricane Isaac hit the home. Crescent City Construction raised the Marcev’s home in 2006. They were satisfied with the work until the 2012 hurricane. The Marcevs claim in their suit that the work is covered by a ten-year warranty. They are suing for a full refund of their payments to Crescent City Construction, as well as architectural fees, damages, interest, and attorney costs. Their claim is that as a result of the work, their home now has structural defects and fails to meet building codes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

August 20, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Yeager Painting, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130316 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama had occasion to consider an insured’s reporting obligations under a general liability policy. Evanston’s insured, Yeager, was hired to sandblast water tanks, and in turn, subcontracted out the work to a third party. On May 19, 2012, an employee of the subcontractor was severely injured in connection with a work-site accident. It is not entirely clear when Yeager provided notice of occurrence to Evanston, although Evanston advised by letter dated January 30, 2013 that it would be further investigating the matter subject to a reservation of rights. Evanston subsequently denied coverage by letter dated April 10, 2013, the disclaimer based on a subcontractor exclusion on the policy. Notably, Evanston’s letter advised that Yeager should immediately contact Evanston if any facts changed or if it had any additional information concerning the matter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

April 15, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

September 17, 2014 — Brian K. Sullivan – Bloomberg
Tropical Storm Polo, the 16th storm of an unusually active eastern Pacific hurricane season, is on a path eerily like that of Odile, which blasted the Baja California peninsula earlier this week. Odile went ashore late Sept. 14 with top winds of 125 miles (201 kilometers) per hour, the strongest storm to hit the region since 1967. As its winds swept the resort city of Cabo San Lucas, it was a Category 3 storm on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale and a major hurricane. At its peak, hours before landfall, Odile’s winds reached 135 mph, Category 4-force. Photos from Mexico’s Baja California Sur show houses destroyed, hotels piled with debris and gaping holes in the local airport. At least 30,000 tourists were stranded. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at bsullivan10@bloomberg.net

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES