Harvey B. Heafitz

Harvey Heafitz holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from Northeastern University, and a Juris Doctor degree from Suffolk University. After earning his engineering degree, Harvey worked for two years in the aerospace industry in Hartford, Connecticut. Following law school, Attorney Heafitz practiced for five years at a general practice firm in Watertown, MA, before opening his own firm in 1978.

Attorney Heafitz has been litigating contract cases through trial and appeal, predominantly on behalf of general contractors and subcontractors, for forty-two years. Attorney Heafitz practices in the State and Federal Courts in Massachusetts, and has practiced in Federal Courts in Maine, New Hampshire and Connecticut. Harvey has tried cases on changed conditions, design defects, interpretation of contract language, and breach of contract.

Mr. Heafitz's Appeals Court decisions include several cases of first impression, have established significant landmark decisions for clients, and have redefined the interpretation of various public construction statutes.

Attorney Heafitz is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Sutton Corporation v. Metropolitan District Commission, 423 Mass. 200 (1992)

First case in Massachusetts wherein the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a finding of a "type two changed condition" under M.G.L. c. 30, § 39N, and determined it to be actionable in Massachusetts. A type two changed condition under c. 30, §39N occurs when the contractor encounters an unforeseen condition that while not an unforeseen item or quantity of material, but an unforeseen circumstance that alters the way the work must be performed. The Court stated: "Where the actual subsurface conditions differ substantially from those conditions ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the plans and contract documents... There is a changed condition under the meaning of the statute, whether or not the conditions differ from the contract specifications. Thus, contrary to the MDC's assertions, the federal "type II" change condition is explicitly part of Massachusetts law..."

TLT Construction Corp. v. Commonwealth of Mass., Division of Capital Planning and Operations, Suffolk Superior Court C.A. No. 92-6572F (1999)

Judgment obtained against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a general contractor, and in addition, judgment entered for sanctions against the Commonwealth under M.G.L. c. 231 § 6F for asserting bad faith, frivolous, and insubstantial defenses. The Court awarded 150% interest, legal fees, and costs, totaling approximately $1 million. The Court stated: "This court finds that the bulk of DCPO's defenses were lacking in any factual support and were therefore, fully insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith." The court's decision increased the $2.8 million base judgment by approximately $1 million for added interest, attorney's fees and costs.

Bastianelli v. National Union Fire Inc. Co., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 367 (1994)

Interpretation of M.G.L. c. 149, § 29, the public construction bond statute, finding that proof of actual notice is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement for formal "written" notice under the statute and circumstance of that case.

Manuel F. Spencer & Sons, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 290 (1983)

First case in Massachusetts interpreting "extra work" as used in M.G.L. c. 30, § 39F, the public works subcontractor direct payment statute from MDPW to the client for that extra work.