Thursday, December 17, 2020
In a recent decision likely to have a significant impact upon the way private construction projects in Massachusetts are managed, the Superior Court recently construed the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Statute in the way the Statute (Statute) was meant to be enforced, but contrary to most current construction practice.
In
Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, Boston Harbor Industrial Development, LLC and Hudson Insurance Co., (November 19, 2020, Sup.Ct. 19-405), the Court strictly construed the Statute’s payment provisions against a project’s owner/manager (O/M), ordering the O/M to pay the contractor the outstanding balance on several unpaid requisitions because the O/M failed to comply with certain of the Statute’s requirements.
Time Past
I am past president and present honorary member of the Stockbridge Bowl Association.
The SBA was founded in 1947 by Anson Phelps Stokes. Its mission statement was and has remained âto preserve and protect the Stockbridge Bowl.â Now 73 years later, the SBA board and its 350 members strive to fulfill this mission.
A Stockbridge selectman once said: âThe commonwealth of Massachusetts owns Stockbridge Bowl, and the town owns its problems.â For decades, the SBA has worked with the town to solve the lakeâs âproblems.â It is our hope to continue working with the town.
I literally grew up at the lake and well remember when we could paddle kayaks under the causeway into Lily Brook holding pond. The pond was filled with fish, and the beavers also ventured there to the dismay of the fishermen. It is now partially filled with sediment and becoming a vegetation wetland. As such, it is beyond the townâs control to remediate. The remainder of th
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Under Massachusetts procedure, a party has the right to compel an opponent to disclose its testifying expert’s opinions through interrogatories. But unlike federal procedure, a party under Massachusetts procedure must obtain leave of court to depose a testifying expert.
Lubin & Meyer, P.C. v. Manning, only if an expert deposition is “reasonable and necessary.”
As Judge Salinger observed in
Lubin & Meyer, a party can typically make that showing where a deposition “is needed to obtain information effectively to cross-examine the expert, and that doing so will likely streamline the presentation of the case at trial.” Or as Judge Salinger wrote (quoting Nelson G. Apjohn,