Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

August 30, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If your construction company is bonded, then you have signed a General Agreement of Indemnity with your surety / bonding company. Stated another way, if a surety issued an obligee on behalf of your construction company, as the bond-principal, a payment or performance bond, then you have signed a General Agreement of Indemnity with your surety. The General Agreement of Indemnity is NOT to be taken lightly. Without the General Agreement of Indemnity, the surety is NOT issuing the bonds you need to work on a certain project. A bond is not insurance and sureties do not issue the bonds under a risk-free premise. Oh no! If a surety has to pay-out claims under a bond, the surety will be looking to recoup that loss from the indemnitors that executed the General Agreement of Indemnity. 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

School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A school district in New York State has settled a dispute with its architectural and engineering firm for $5.2 million. Greece School District alleged that the multi-million dollar remodel lead to a variety of problems due to design defects. The problems included leaking roofs, malfunctioning drainage systems, and problems with heating systems. Tetra Tech had one work at 20 schools in the district. The state Comptroller audited the $119.5 million renovation project and concluded that haste in the planning resulted in costly changes. Prior to the lawsuit, the architectural and engineering firm managed to recoup about $200,000 on behalf of the school district for work that was defective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Could This Gel Help Tame the California Fires?

November 28, 2018 — Gordy Megroz - Bloomberg
In 2009, Jeff Denholm was making a living as an adventure athlete, competing in stand-up paddleboard races and riding giant waves at Mavericks, the famous surf break near his home in Santa Cruz, Calif. Denholm was sponsored by Patagonia Inc., but to generate extra cash—“Adventure athletes don’t make a ton of money,” he says—he had a side gig leasing a fire truck to state and county crews that had run out of equipment battling wildfires. One firefighting tool that Denholm kept onboard was retardant, which helps tamp down existing fires and can prevent them; he used a type known as a foam suppressant. Last year the U.S. Forest Service spent about $72 million on retardants, but in researching them, Denholm discovered some discouraging information. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordy Megroz, Bloomberg

Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer after analyzing the known loss provision in the insured subcontractor's policy. Kaady v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10754 (9th Cir. June 25, 2015). The insured was awarded a subcontract to install manufactured stone at the residential project. The stone was affixed to the wall sheathing. The insured also wrapped deck posts with manufactured stone and installed masonry caps on the toe of the stone that was wrapped around the deck posts. After construction was completed, the insured was called back to the project to inspect cracks in the manufactured stone and masonry caps he installed. The insured told the general contractor that the cracks were likely due to settling. Three months after inspecting the cracks, the insured purchased a CGL policy from Mid-Continent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

May 20, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After a week of being unable to post due to the rigors of my solo construction practice, I’m back on the blogging train. For those of you that missed my new musings this past week, I hope that you had a chance to look through some of the past Guest Post Friday posts for some good stuff to read. During the course of my busy week last week, a question came up regarding the mechanic’s lien waivers that commercial construction companies routinely execute as part of the payment process. The waiver forms vary, but each essentially states that in exchange for payment the payee, whether a subcontractor or supplier (or even general contractor) waives its future rights to record a mechanic’s lien for the work that is covered by the payment received. Most if not all of these forms further require a certification that the funds paid will either be used to pay suppliers or that suppliers have already been paid. This general description is not the reason for this post. As is always the case in the Commonwealth of Virginia where the contract is king and a court is unlikely to reinterpret any written contractual document, the devil is in how that waiver is worded. Some waivers are worded in such a way that they essentially require a payee to certify receipt of the funds prior to payment being received. These same forms require the same pre-payment certification that all suppliers and subcontractors of the payee have already been paid. In short they require a payee to both place complete trust in the payor that the check will be paid and that the check will not bounce while in many cases (often with an unstated “wink and nod”) claiming payment was already made when all know the likelihood is that it has not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

February 05, 2015 — Tom Beardsworth – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated last month as housing strengthened and civil engineering bounced back from a contraction. Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 59.1 from 57.6 in December. A reading above 50 indicates expansion. Economists forecast the gauge would fall to 57, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Beardsworth, Bloomberg
Mr. Beardsworth may be contacted at tbeardsworth@bloomberg.net

Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

January 21, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Aldo Svaldi of The Denver Post, condo development has increased in the Denver metro area, though builders stated they are carefully documenting each step of construction as well as vetting contractors and materials. "We are being ultra-careful about everything," Roy Kline, a managing director at Western Development Group, told the Denver Post. Western Development is behind the 250 Columbine development. Svaldi reported that Western Development Group has been “photographing or filming every step of construction.” Brian Levitt and Trevor Hines of NAVA Real Estate Development “have spent the past year crafting a detailed three-page, 18-point action plan to deal with any contingency they could think of arising from the state's constructions-defects law.” Levitt told Svaldi that he “estimates all the safeguards being put in place will add 5 percent to 10 percent to the costs of the units at NAVA Sloan Lake, whose final price points are being determined.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

September 24, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties. Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney. In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis and Kristian Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES