Massachusetts Construction Lawyer


Christopher Strang’s Article Published on the Cover of Under Construction

Strang Scott partner, Chris Strang, co-authored and article with Brendan Carter from the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts that was published recently on the cover of the American Bar Association’s “Under Construction” quarterly newsletter. The article details a case where Strang Scott prevailed against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, successfully arguing that the awarding authority has a duty to ensure the validity of payment bonds provided by general contractors on public construction projects in Massachusetts. The case was a matter of first impression in Massachusetts courts. The post Christopher Strang’s Article Published on the Cover of Under Construction appeared first on Strang, Scott, Giroux & Young, LLP.


Forfeiture Rule in Construction Disputes Under Review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Since the early 1900’s, Massachusetts courts have held that a contractor cannot recover on the contract itself without showing complete and strict performance of all terms or, in the event the contract cannot be completed fully, that the contractor substantially performed and attempted, in good faith, to perform fully. Under this rule, if the court finds that the contractor intentionally departed from the specifications of the contract, the contractor is prohibited from recovering under the contract, forfeiting its right to contract damages. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will hear arguments this week requesting the forfeiture rule in construction cases to be overturned. The appellant in G4S Technology LLC v. Mass. Tech. Park Corp., SJC-12397, appeals a prior summary judgment ruling, wherein the trial court denied the contractor’s claims for approximately $10 million in delay-and-impact damages on the basis of the forfeiture rule. Despite ultimately completing the pro..


Promise to Pay Doesn’t Change Mechanic’s Lien Deadline

In a recent decision, D5 Iron Works, Inc. v. Danvers Fish & Game Club, Inc., & Others, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled that an owner’s promise to make payment to the subcontractor did not excuse the subcontractor’s failure to timely file suit. In the case, the general contractor was delinquent in paying the subcontractor. The subcontractor timely filed a Notice of Contract as well as a Statement of Account . Nevertheless, Massachusetts lien law requires that a lawsuit be filed within 90 days of filing the Statement of Account. According to the Subcontractor, the project owner represented that the subcontractor would be paid. The subcontractor testified that it relied on that representation in not timely filing the lawsuit. Consistent with its prior decisions, the court ruled that mechanic’s lien statutory deadlines are to be strictly enforced, and denied the subcontractor’s claims.* This case stands as a fresh reminder that the statutory deadlines for mechanic’s lien filing..


The White House Proposes $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Development Program

The White House recently released its “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America.” In the preamble to the outline, The White House requested that Congress act to implement the infrastructure program in short order through new legislation. In broad strokes, the outline calls for new spending to stimulate $1.5 trillion dollars in infrastructure investments, from federal and state governments, agencies and localities, to address American infrastructure projects. Should the program be implemented by Congress in any meaningful way, it would mean a boon for public construction projects and contractors. Contractors would be wise to keep a careful eye on this proposed legislation as it develops. The post The White House Proposes $1.5 Trillion Infrastructure Development Program appeared first on Strang, Scott, Giroux & Young, LLP.


Understanding the Limitations of Chapter 93A: Pre-Litigation Attorneys’ Fees Not Recoverable

The Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer Protection Act, commonly referred to by its statutory chapter number, “Chapter 93A,” is a frequently utilized statute that provides individual consumers and businesses with a right to bring legal action and recover damages if they are harmed by an unfair business practice. Under the statute, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” or “unfair methods of competition” committed while conducting business in Massachusetts permit the harmed party to recover their actual damages, or a statutory minimum of $25 per offense (whichever is greater), and up to three times such damages for knowing and willful violations of the statute, plus an award for reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs of the lawsuit. Chapter 93A creates harsh penalties, with a wide-reaching scope, to deter unfair business acts, however, it does have limitations. Previously, we explained the prohibition on Chapter 93A recovery with regard to a party’s decision to litigate a ..


Massachusetts Awarding Authorities Must Allow Sub-bidders to Respond to Negative Reviews

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Bid Protest Unit (“AG”) recently decided that when an awarding authority seeks references not listed by the sub-bidder, it must give the sub-bidder the opportunity to respond when such reviews are negative. In the case, the Barre Housing Authority (“BHA”) sought public bids for a panel replacement project. BHA checked the references for the low sub-bidder, but also reached out to an unlisted public entity for which the sub-bidder had previously performed work. That public entity gave the sub-bidder a negative review, which caused BHA to reject the low sub-bidder’s bid. The sub-bidder filed a bid protest. Pursuant to Massachusetts public bidding laws the AG’s office conducted an investigation and held a hearing. The AG decided that while BHA reaching out to references not listed by the sub-bidder was not improper, by doing so they implicitly created an obligation to offer the sub-bidder a chance to rebut the negative reference. The AG ordered BHA ..


OSHA Injury Tracking Application Enforcement Delayed to December 15, 2017

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently extended, for the second time, the enforcement deadline for compliance with electronic reporting of injury and illness data through its Injury Tracking Application (ITA) until December 15, 2017. The new rule took effect January 1, 2017, and required certain employers to submit injury and illness information electronically through the new tracking application. The information required to be submitted to OSHA remains largely unchanged from the information already required to be kept under current regulations. In other words, the primary difference is that it must be submitted through the ITA rather than through traditional methods. In late November, the deadline was pushed back again to December 15, 2017. Despite the second delay in enforcement it appears that the rule will eventually begin enforcement, even amid speculation that the rule might be scuttled entirely. For the time being, construction employers should be pr..


Know Your Rights – Limitations on Retainage for Private Construction Projects

The Massachusetts Retainage Act limits the amount of retainage allowed for private construction projects, and imposes mandatory processes for reaching the date of substantial completion, submitting punchlists and completing punchlist items, and submitting applications for payment and obtaining payment of retainage. The Act applies to all construction contracts signed after November 4, 2014, for privately owned projects where the original contract price with the owner is at least three million dollars and the general contractor, subcontractors, or design professionals would have mechanic’s lien rights , but exempts residential housing projects of one to four units. Limit on Retainage Under the Act, no more than five percent retainage may be withheld from any progress payment. Among other things, this prohibits frontloading retainage amounts for a portion of the project, with less held at the end. Substantial Completion The Act defines substantial completion as the stage in the proj..


Contractors Beware: OSHA Begins Enforcement of New Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard

On October 19, 2017, OSHA released interim enforcement guidance for its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. This standard began full enforcement on October 23, 2017. The Interim Enforcement Guidance issued refers to the standard promulgated on September 23, 2017. Initially, rather than issue citations for violations of the standard, OSHA’s compliance officers were instructed to assist employers making good faith efforts to comply with the new standard for the first 30 days of its enforcement. With the new Guidance issued on October 19, full enforcement of the new standard was rolled out on October 23. Accordingly, employers in the construction industry, and particularly those where substantial silica exposures may be encountered, should be cognizant that full enforcement of the standard will now be enforced by compliance officers. The Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard established a new exposure limit for respirable crystalline silica at 50 mi..


Home Improvement Contractor Denied Damages for “Reasonable Value” of Completed Work

Damages for work performed under a construction contract may be awarded under a variety of legal theories. One such theory is the principle of quantum meruit, which, when established, allows for an award of the reasonable value of goods or services as compensation for the value of “enrichment” those goods or services provide. Generally, one must demonstrate both good faith and substantial performance in order to recover on the theory of quantum meruit. Recently, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed an award of damages on a quantum meruit claim after homeowners terminated their contract prior to completion of work. In Pinecone Construction, Inc. v. Sridhar, the trial court awarded quantum meruit damages to a contractor, reasoning that while the contractor’s work intentionally departed from the contract specifications, the work was “structurally sound” and was used in completing the project. As a result, the court concluded that “equity demands” that the contractor recover the valu..



Page 1 of 41234