Cambridge Massachusetts Construction Expert Witness Directory

Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Wins Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer

April 01, 2025 — Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman
In this matter brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood prevailed on a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of an insurance company in a dispute between multiple insurers regarding the extent of each insurer’s obligation to defend and indemnify a construction company in an alleged workplace injury claim. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com

Construction Defect Disputes: Know Your Measure of Damages!!!!!

January 21, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Remember this: know your measure of damages in a construction defect dispute. If you don’t, as shown below, the outcome can be unforgiving. The measure of damages is one of your most important elements of proof. You are filing suit for damages; thus, knowing what you can reasonably recovery is paramount. In a recent dispute, Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Sabga, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D91e (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), a residential developer sold a single-family house while it was under construction in an as-is purchase agreement. Post-closing, the purchasers claimed defects and served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects letter. The purchaser subsequently initiated a construction defect lawsuit. During the nonjury trial, the purchaser’s expert testified that the purchasers suffered damages approximating $323,000 calculated as of January 19, 2022 (which was the date of the expert’s report). The expert further testified that the cost to finish the incomplete/defective work increased by 35% at the date of the May 2023 trial. However, the expert never testified as to the amount of damages as of the date of the contractual breach, which at the latest, would have been in April 2018 when the notice of construction defects letter was sent (or, at its earliest, June 2017 when closing occurred). At trial, the judge entered judgment for the purchasers in the amount of about $425,0000. This was reversed on appeal with judgment to be entered in favor of the developer. Why? Because the purchasers employed the wrong measure of damages and the only thing that prevented them from introducing the right measure of damages was within their control. Harsh outcome for not applying the correct measure of damages! Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Congratulations to Partner Alex Giannetto for Being Named to San Diego Business Journal’s Top 100 Leaders in Law List

December 03, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Alexander Giannetto for being selected as a “2024 Leaders of Influence in Law” by the San Diego Business Journal! To read and download the SDBJ publication, please click here. Alex Giannetto is a managing partner with Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O’Meara LLP’s San Diego office. He has extensive experience in all aspects of civil litigation handling liability matters including slip and falls, catastrophic injuries, wrongful death, traumatic brain injuries, landslides, and construction claims. He has obtained favorable trial results defending clients on personal injury and premises matters in San Diego and Los Angeles. He also has appellate experience. He is an AV-rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell who has been voted Best of the Bar in San Diego as well as a Top Lawyer in San Diego. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Newark Trial Team Defends “No Cause” With Appellate Affirmance Of 2023 Jury Verdict

April 01, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Newark, N.J. (March 17, 2025) - A day after securing a favorable defense verdict -- the Newark Trial Team of Partners Afsha Noran and Colin Hackett received an appellate court affirmance of a “no cause” jury verdict obtained for a firm client in 2023. In this case, the plaintiff was an adult woman who alleged that she suffered life-altering injuries as a result of slipping and falling at the client's place of business in 2018. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the client was negligent when it allowed puddles of water to accumulate in the property's interior lobby area, which she had to traverse. The plaintiff further contended that as a result of the incident, her preexisting lumbar and cervical conditions not only returned, but worsened to the point that she became immobile and required the use of a wheelchair and walker to move. She asserted a significant demand in the six-figure range, which remained in place at the time of trial. After 35 minutes of deliberations, the seven-member jury returned a unanimous "no cause" verdict in favor of Lewis Brisbois' client. In doing so, the jury determined that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was negligent with regard to the plaintiff’s fall. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

California Court of Appeal Finds Lingering Smoke From Wildfire is not Direct Physical Loss

April 08, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
On the heals of a decision from a federal district court that smoke damaged was a direct physical loss, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding the insureds' claim for loss due to smoke damage. Gharibian v. Wawanesa General Ins. Co., 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 64 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2025). The prior, federal case, Bottega, LLC, et al. v. National Surety Corporation-Chicago, IL, 2025, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5666 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2025) is here. On October 10, 2019, the Saddle Ridge wildfire began in the foothills of northern Los Angeles County. The fire burned about half a mile away from plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs' property did not suffer any burn damage. Debris still entered their home, however, with more debris falling outside their home and in their swimming pool. While there was the smell of wildfire smoke, it dissipated over time. Plaintiffs' insurer, Wawanesa General Insurance Company, sent PuroClean to inspect the property. PuroClean prepared an estimate of $4,308.90 for what it would cost to clean the property. Plaintiffs did not hire PuroClean to do the work. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Michigan Bid-Rig Plea Lands Former Asphalt Paving Executive in Prison

May 06, 2025 — Elaine Silver - Engineering News-Record
A federal judge has sentenced one of several people charged in a Michigan asphalt paving price-fixing scheme to prison. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record

Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

November 25, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is very proud to announce that Nick Rodriguez has been promoted to the position of partner with the firm! Nick has been with BWB&O since 2019 and is licensed to practice law in California and the U.S. District Courts. Nick’s practice focuses on complex construction defect matters, as well as personal injury and wrongful death claims. During his time with the firm, Nick has successfully represented numerous clients through alternative dispute resolution and has taken matters to trial where he has received favorable jury verdicts. He also supervises and manages a team of associates in the Newport Beach office. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Keep an Eye Out on What Your Insurance Policy and Contract Says

February 19, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There is a very good reason the contract requires the party providing a service (e.g., subcontractor) to name the paying party (e.g., general contractor) as an additional insured under its liability policies (e.g., CGL policy) on a primary and non-contributory basis. There is also a very good reason why you, as an insured, should read the contracts you sign with the party providing a service for you. In other words, keep an eye out on what your insurance policy says and what your contract says! This is an ABSOLUTE!! If you want to know the good reasons, look no further to the recent case of Colony Insurance Co. v. Titan Restoration Construction, Inc., 2025 WL 45160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). In this case, a general contractor’s CGL policy contained an endorsement that stated there would be no coverage UNLESS the general and subcontractor executed an agreement containing, “A requirement for the [subcontractor] to name the insured [general contractor] as an additional insured under their Commercial General Liability policy on a primary and non-contributory basis in favor of the insured [general contractor].” Colony Insurance, supra. The general contractor hired a roofing subcontractor. There was no requirement for the roofing subcontractor to name the general contractor as an additional insured on a primary and noncontributory basis. Also, the proposal the general contractor signed contained a disclaimer from the roofing subcontractor that the subcontractor “will not be held responsible for water damage to the exterior or the interior of the premises.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES