Spring 2005

Recent Court Decisions

Sheehan v. Modern Continental, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 937 (2005)

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled against a general contractor on an indemnification clause in its subcontract because the clause, which required indemnification “for claims . . . caused or alleged to be caused . . . by subcontractor,” violated c. 149, §29c. The term “alleged to be caused” could result in indemnification for injury not caused by the subcontractor. The Court also ruled, however, that because the indemnification provision contained a saving clause, the offending language could be removed and the remaining provision enforced.

Interstate Electrical v. Cummings, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 295 (2005)

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held an electrical contractor’s lien was timely when filed within the statutory time from when the contractor returned to the site, four months after most of the physical work was complete, in order to perform certain tests and switch circuit breaker labels to reflect the appropriate system capacity for which the owner (leasee) had contracted and to comply with state law. The court cited the general rule on additional work that the “period for filing the lien will run from the doing of such work . . . regardless of the value [thereof] if not so trivial or inconsequential that failure to do it would still leave the contract substantially performed.”

This newsletter is intended to provide general information of interest to the construction industry. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice or to address fact specific issues. For that you should consult your legal counsel. Corwin & Corwin LLP assumes no liability in connection with the use of this newsletter. The Supreme Judicial Court may consider this material advertising.
©1992-2005 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved.