Massachusetts

Subscribe to Massachusetts

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has provided construction project owners, developers, general contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, and vendors with a helpful reminder about obtaining effective additional insurance coverage on construction projects.
Continue Reading Note to “Additional Insureds” Relying on Builders’ Risk Insurance: Federal Court Decision Evaluates Extent of Coverage

This post was published by High Profile magazine on May 27, 2020.

Governor Charlie Baker announced today that all construction projects in Massachusetts may reopen immediately, provided contractors and owners comply with new safety guidelines and compliance documentation requirements. These new requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:…
Continue Reading Massachusetts Construction Projects May Reopen Immediately, Governor Announces; Boston to Follow May 25th

In an effort to prepare to restart construction on suspended projects after imposing pandemic-related restrictions on construction deemed nonessential, the City of Boston recently issued its revised “Temporary Guidance for Construction in the City of Boston,” which took effect on April 27, 2020.

Last week, the City indicated that this new policy is effective for active permitted projects, and for all future permit applications moving forward, including Alterations, Amendments, Erect Building, Use of Premises, Short Form, Electrical (Temp Service, Low Voltage, Fire Alarm, and general), Plumbing, Gas, Sprinkler, Sheet Metal and Trench permits.
Continue Reading Boston Issues New COVID-19 Guidelines Applicable to All City-Permitted Projects

As we began to describe on March 18, the economic impacts of the ongoing coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic on the construction industry are becoming more severe as the pandemic continues and spreads. Substantial uncertainty remains, however – as of the date of this post, the “peak” of the pandemic in New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts is expected to occur (depending on which reports you read) in mid-April, late-April or May, respectively. It appears increasingly likely that proactive, protective measures in these states, along with their restrictive effects on the economy and construction activity, will continue through the end of April and into May.
Continue Reading Ongoing Impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Construction Projects in Major Markets

As the Coronavirus spreads across the globe, its impact continues to disrupt many industries, including construction.  Over the last twenty years, the construction industry in the United States has substantially increased its reliance on China as a supplier for all types of construction materials including electrical and lighting equipment, elevators and component parts, plumbing fittings…

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is slated to hear oral argument in G4S Technology LLC v. Mass. Technology Park Corp. on Monday, March 5, 2017 – a case with significant implications for construction litigation.

The dispute arises out of a $45 million public works project to build a 1200-mile fiber optic network bringing high speed Internet access to western Massachusetts. Appellee Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation (MTPC), a state development agency, awarded the contract to design and build the fiber optic network to Appellant G4S Technology LLC (G4S).
Continue Reading Oral Argument Preview: G4S Technology LLC v. Mass. Technology Park Corp.

In a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a mechanic’s lien filed by an unpaid supplier against a construction project, after the contractor through whom the materials were furnished filed for bankruptcy, was voidable. In re Linear Electric Co., No. 16-1477 (3rd Cir. March 30, 2017).  Specifically, the Court held that once the contractor filed for bankruptcy, the automatic stay barred the filing of a mechanic’s lien. While the supplier argued that the lien only encumbered property of the owner of the construction project, rather than property of the contract, the Court rejected that argument. The Court held that because the lien permitted recovery of money owed by the owner to the contractor, the lien acted to seize a portion of the contractor’s accounts receivable, which was now an asset of the bankruptcy estate.

Interestingly, the Court noted that the result might have been different if another state’s law governed. The Court acknowledged that in another case, In re Yobe Electric, Inc., 728 F.2d 207 (3rd Cir. 1984), the filing of a mechanic’s lien by a subcontractor did not violate the automatic stay provision because, under Pennsylvania law, the date of filing the mechanic’s lien related back to “the date of visible commencement upon the ground of the work of erecting or constructing the improvement.” In In re Linear, the Court applied New Jersey law, which contained no such relate back provision and, therefore, the mechanic’s lien was effective only as of the date of filing. …
Continue Reading The Enforceability of Mechanic’s Liens in Bankruptcy is Dependent on State Law

Construction projects are no stranger to delays and the inevitable resulting disputes. To allocate such risks, parties frequently include no damage for delay causes in their contracts. These provisions commonly provide that in the event of a delay the contractor’s remedy is limited to an extension of time. Given that there are often multiple causes of delays and a variety of types of delay damages it is critical that at the onset of a construction project the parties consider and properly allocate the risk of such delays and the potential resulting costs in the contract documents.

A recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision offers further insight into the importance of the contract in allocating the risk of delay damages. In Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Tenacity Constr., Inc. (Mass.Super, 2016), the court held that the terms of the contract precluded the contractor from recovering lost productivity and costs associated with work inefficiencies incurred while performing Winter work. The case arose from two distinct construction projects involving the plaintiff Cumberland Farms, Inc. (“CFI”) as the owner and Tenacity Construction, Inc.(“Tenacity”) as the contractor. Both projects suffered severe delays. As a result CFI granted Tenacity an extension of time and agreed to pay Tenacity time and materials for costs incurred while performing work during the Winter months. Prior to performing the work Tenacity claimed that reimbursement for time and materials would likely not fully compensate Tenacity for any lost productivity or inefficiency costs incurred during the Winter and that Tenacity may seek such costs at a later date. Although CFI did not deny this request it also did not agree to the request. A couple months after completing the Winter work, Tenacity sent CFI a letter claiming that it was entitled to an equitable adjustment of the contract price for lost productivity and inefficiency costs attributable to Winter conditions. In response CFI requested back-up information in support of Tenacity’s claim but ultimately denied the request.
Continue Reading Contract Barred Recovery of Lost Productivity Damages Suffered by Contractor