Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Directory

A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

November 25, 2024 — Christopher F. Graham & Morgan A. Goldstein - White and Williams LLP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ground leases are an important – if somewhat unusual – part of the real estate finance industry. Because they typically cover large expensive properties like Rockefeller Center and The Empire State Building, to name two, and last a long time (99 years and up to start) the likelihood of something unexpected or unintended happening is high. This likelihood increases dramatically if, as highlighted below, one or both of the lease parties’ files for bankruptcy. Accordingly, real estate professionals should take note and take care when entering into any transaction involving a ground lease. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher F. Graham, White and Williams LLP and Morgan A. Goldstein, White and Williams LLP Mr. Graham may be contacted at grahamc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Goldstein may be contacted at goldsteinm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

July 31, 2024 — Erica Whaley - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this year, the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract. The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robinson + Cole

2025 Construction Law Update

January 07, 2025 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s that time of year again. The second half of the 2023-2024 legislative session saw the introduction of 2,124 bills, of which, 1418 were signed into law. Among the bills signed by the governor impacting contractors is an increase in the small work licensing exemption for $500 to $1,000, the licensing of Indian tribes by the CSLB, and a number of project-specific bills, as is typical, related to project-specific alternative project delivery methods. Wishing you and yours a great 2025! Licensing AB 2622 – Increases the small work licensing exemption from $500 to $1,000 provided that the work: (1) does not require a building permit; and (2) does not involve the employment of others to perform or assist in the work. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

September 09, 2024 — Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute Resolver
A contract awarded, protested, terminated, appealed, then reinstated. It’s no secret that federal construction procurements are plagued with uncertainty. From delays, constructive suspensions, compromised supply chains, the litigation-laden critical path method, and the mandate for all construction materials used in federally funded projects for infrastructure to be produced in the United States under the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) (to name just a few traditional and emerging favorites), just one of these issues could fill the rest of anyone’s month with substantive research. To add one more, which is entirely unique to bid protests, federal contractors–including construction contractors–listed in a General Service Administration (GSA) Schedule may have new grounds to have a contract award reinstated that was terminated by a federal agency pending a GAO decision. GAO Protest An initial GAO protest filed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) argued that the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (Agency) wrongfully made an award to Kearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney) when the Agency: (1) improperly evaluated quotes; and (2) failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. At issue was a competed task order with Kearney under a GSA FSS multiple-award contract. Before the GAO issued an opinion, however, it held an unrecorded predictive-outcome conference with Deloitte and Kearney where the only mutual consensus was the likely ineligibility of all offerors for the relevant award. The Agency subsequently elected to take corrective action, terminating Kearney’s contract award for convenience, amending the solicitation to avoid issues (including undisputed issues) addressed in the GAO protest. After the Agency adopted their corrective action, the GAO protest was dismissed as academic and moot. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

November 05, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
Dispute resolution provisions that grant one party the unilateral right to choose either litigation or arbitration to resolve disputes are common in the construction industry. The main difference between the two forums is that courts are more likely to strictly enforce contract terms as written as well as the applicable law, while arbitrators make decisions on more equitable considerations, untethered to the contract terms and—to some degree—the law. The party with the sole discretion to select the dispute resolution procedure can select the process most beneficial to its interests based on the nature of the dispute, regardless of who brings the claims. In Atlas Electrical Construction, Inc. v. Flintco, LLC, 550 P.3d 881 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico recently held that an arbitration provision in a subcontract, under which the contractor retained the exclusive right to choose whether disputes arising under the subcontract were litigated in court or arbitrated was unreasonably one-sided, substantively unconscionable, and unenforceable. The Atlas Electrical case involved two sophisticated entities with equal bargaining strength to negotiate the terms of a subcontract. The parties agreed to a subcontract provision which provided in the relevant part:

In the event [contractor] and [subcontractor] cannot resolve the dispute through direct discussions or mediation … then the dispute shall, at the sole discretion of [contractor], be decided either by submission to (a) arbitration … or (b) litigation …

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

October 28, 2024 — Craig Tappel - Construction Executive
A rush to build at a time when the U.S. housing supply continues to fall short may come with a cost to the construction industry. Particularly in hot markets—Sun Belt states and the Mountain West—the drive to finish fast, if not big, can lead to construction and design-defect litigation. Last fall, for example, $22 million in damages were awarded to 220 unhappy homeowners in a South Carolina subdivision northwest of Charleston, four years after their claim for defective work was filed against a major U.S. homebuilder and its subcontractors. Defective work is one of three areas where the construction industry is particularly vulnerable as class-action litigation and thermonuclear verdicts surge. Another is the risk of loss of life or permanent disability on a site, and not solely involving workers: Over $860 million was awarded in 2023 to the family of a woman who was killed in a 2019 crane collapse at a Dallas construction site. Reprinted courtesy of Craig Tappel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

September 09, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida, Berkley Insurance Co. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Case 1:19-cv-23059-KMW (S.D.Fla. July 22, 2024), provides valuable takeaways on schedule-based disputes between a general contractor and subcontractor on a high-rise project. In a nutshell, the general contractor’s original project schedule was abandoned due to project delays and the project wasn’t being built by any updated project schedule. The subcontractor claimed the general contractor was mismanaging the schedule putting unreasonable manpower and supervision constraints on it, i.e., it was working inefficiently. A bench trial was conducted and the Court found in favor of the subcontractor’s arguments. The Court found the general contractor had unrelated delays and that work activities were no longer methodical but, simply, piecemeal demands. The Court also rejected any inadequate manpower arguments finding the subcontract did not place any manpower requirements on the subcontractor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

¡AI Caramba!

January 07, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
You can’t make this up. That’s what a federal judge in Texas told an attorney whom it was sanctioning for impermissible reliance on artificial intelligence in preparing a brief to the court. “Pending before the court is the question of whether Plaintiff's counsel… should be sanctioned for submitting a response brief to the court that includes case cites generated by artificial intelligence that refer to nonexistent cases as well as to nonexistent quotations.” Counsel for the defendant in the case – pursuing summary judgment for a tire manufacturer in a wrongful termination lawsuit – pointed up in a reply brief that the opposition brief of the plaintiff cited two purported – and as it turned out, nonexistent – unpublished decisions: Roca v. King's Creek Plantation, LLC, 500 F. App'x 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2012) and Beets v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 94-10034, 1994 WL 714026, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 1994), and quotations from as many as six other apparently-existing cases but which were unable to be found within the reported decisions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES