BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes Anaheim California casino resort Anaheim California production housing Anaheim California condominiums Anaheim California multi family housing Anaheim California custom home Anaheim California office building Anaheim California condominium Anaheim California mid-rise construction Anaheim California housing Anaheim California townhome construction Anaheim California Medical building Anaheim California structural steel construction Anaheim California hospital construction Anaheim California high-rise construction Anaheim California retail construction Anaheim California Subterranean parking Anaheim California industrial building Anaheim California concrete tilt-up Anaheim California institutional building Anaheim California landscaping construction Anaheim California parking structure Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Allowing the Use of a General Verdict Form in a Construction Defect Case Could Subject Your Client to Prejudgment Interest

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Discovery Ordered in Nevada Construction Defect Lawsuit

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

    There is No Non-Delegable Duty on the Part of Residential Builders in Colorado

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Preparing for Trial on a Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code section 895, et seq.

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    Know the Minnesota Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Limitations of Liability in Subcontractors’ Contracts May Not Be Enforceable in Colorado to Limit Claims by Construction Professionals.

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Ohio Casualty’s and Beazer’s Motions were Granted in Part, and Denied in Part

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Construction Defects Leave Animal Shelter Unusable

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Anaheim, California Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Anaheim's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Anaheim California general contracting slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting ada design expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting OSHA expert witness constructionAnaheim California general contracting window expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction claims expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction defect expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting engineering consultantAnaheim California general contracting construction project management expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting architectural engineering expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million.

    Read the full story…


    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    July 5, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).

    Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.

    The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.

    Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    OSHA announced that its current rules on fall protection for residential construction will remain in place until September 15, 2012. The current measures became effective in June 2011. Under the new rules, falls must be prevented by fall protection measures unless the measures can be shown to be unfeasible or even hazardous.

    Under the extension of the temporary enforcement measures, contractors who ask for compliance assistance with OSHA are given top priority and penalties can be reduced. OSHA has conducted more than 1,000 outreach sessions on the new rules.

    Read the full story…


    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    October 31, 2010 — Original article by Michael Bradford in Business Insurance

    ATLANTA—Negligent construction that results in damage to surrounding property constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled.

    In a 6-1 opinion Monday in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Hathaway Development Co. Inc., the Georgia high court upheld a lower court ruling that the general contractor’s claim for damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty plumbing work was covered.

    The ruling on construction defects is the latest in number of such cases across the United States

    Read Full Story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bradford of Business Insurance.


    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    April 25, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Randall E. Presley was a homebuilder in Southern California for more than thirty years, acting as head of Presley Development Company from 1956 until selling the firm to Lyon Homes in 1987. The two companies merged in 1991 as the Presley Cos. Mr. Presley saw the need in the 1950s to provide people in Southern California with low- to medium-priced quality homes.

    His firm built more than 160 communities and was among the ten largest homebuilding firms in the country, expanding beyond California. Mr. Presley was 93 when he succumbed to pneumonia. He is survived by a wife, three children, seven grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Businessweek reports that construction jobs and materials will see increased demand as property owners in New York and New Jersey rebuild after hurricane Sandy. Tom Jeffery, of Irvine, California-based CoreLogic, a real estate information service, noted that “a high percent of damaged properties are going to be repaired.” Experts estimate property damage to total anywhere from $7 billion to $40 billion.

    It is also estimated that about 739,000 properties in the area are underwater in the way that has nothing to do with flooding, with negative equity of 25 percent or more. Many of these homeowners are likely to walk away from their mortgages.

    Ken Simonson, chief economist of the Associated General Contractors of America, expects “localized spikes in construction employment throughout November and the winter.” Martin Connor, the chief financial officer of Toll Brothers, expects to see more a rise in labor costs than in materials.

    Read the full story…


    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    May 20, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    PR Newswire reports that the Carolinas Associated General Contractors (CAGC) have successfully persuaded the South Carolina legislature to pass a bill restoring commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. Governor Nikki Hartley signed the legislation on May 17.

    A South Carolina Supreme Court decision given on January 7, 2011, had ended commercial general liability coverage in the state. Senate Bill 431 addressed this decision, restoring the ability of home builders to obtain CGL coverage.

    PR Newswire quotes South Carolina homebuilder, Allen Amsler: “We have seen a lot of legislation with substantial impact to our business over the years. However, I would place this in the same level of importance with the original tort reform legislation. The effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling could have been catastrophic to our industry in South Carolina had it not been for this bill. Thanks to all those in the House, Senate and the Governor’s office who assisted us.”

    Read the full story…


    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Texas construction firm, founded in 1937, filed for bankruptcy, bringing twenty-two projects to a sudden halt, and resulting in the loss of jobs for hundreds of employees. Ballenger Construction told its employees to go home, as it could not complete the jobs. In some cases, work will need to be done to ensure that the work sites do not cause public safety hazards.

    Read the full story…


    Joinder vs. Misjoinder in Colorado Construction Claims: Roche Constructors v. One Beacon

    July 10, 2012 — David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Often, those practicing in the construction defect field have faced questions concerning the joinder of a party. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado weighed in on the requirements for joinder under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. See Roche Constructors, Inc. v. One Beacon America Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1060000 (D. Colo. 2012). Roche secured a construction contract to build a detention facility for the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office in Lincoln County, Nebraska. In turn, Roche entered into a subcontract with Dobberstein Roofing Company, Inc. in October 2009 to install the roofing system and other related work at the detention facility. The subcontract agreement required Dobberstein to maintain adequate commercial general liability insurance and to add Roche as an additional insured under the policy. Roche maintained a builder’s risk policy issued by OneBeacon America Insurance Company and Dobberstein secured a certificate of liability insurance underwritten by Transportation Insurance Company (“TIC”). Id. at *1.

    Roche alleged that Dobberstein constructed the roofing system in a negligent manner in violation of the subcontract. Roche claims it incurred additional costs to repair structural damage to the roofing system as a result of Dobberstein’s negligent work. In order to cover said damage, Roche tendered insurance claims to OneBeacon and TIC.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com


    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

    Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

    Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

    After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

    Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

    Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    August 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    It’s Tuesday, which means it ’s the middle of your work week. Tuesday is a great time to take an hour to look over your contracts, while the crews are pushing through their scheduled work. Today’s food for thought: How do you use your contract to reduce your litigation burden?

    Your contract should do many things. It should discuss the scope of work, scheduling of work, quality of work, coverage for liabilities and conditions and timeliness for payment. But often overlooked is how your contract can lend to dispute resolution.

    Commonly, you will see a simple provision that covers governing law, venue for disputes and the awarding of attorneys’ fees. But you can do better. Remember, a contract is enforced to the maximum extent possible in Washington state.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com


    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    June 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.

    In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.

    The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.

    Read the court’s decision


    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    October 23, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The court considered whether rain damage to a house was barred by the policy's mold exclusion. Stewart v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 127804 (D. S.D. Sept. 7, 2012).

    The insureds hired DJ Construction to build a new home. Before construction was completed, it was discovered that DJ Construction and some of its subcontractors had failed to protect the partially constructed house from the elements, which allowed melting snow and rain to intrude into the house. Soon after this discovery, DJ Construction abandoned the project. The house remained incomplete and uninhabitable.

    The insureds sued DJ Construction.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The downtown Indianapolis area is the site of about 85 major building projects that are from groundbreaking to just complete. The Indianapolis Star reports that the cumulative worth of the projects is about $3 billion, a level of construction that Indianapolis has seen only once before.

    About thirty of the projects are residential. The main commercial project is a $754 million hospital building. The boom in downtown Indianapolis is not matched elsewhere, with the Indianapolis Star reporting that in the rest of Central Indiana, construction has slowed.

    Read the full story…


    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    June 15, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Houston law firm of Eggleston & Briscoe successfully defended their client, Colony Insurance Company, which was being sued for $22 million over roof hail damage. The Summer Hill Village Community Association did not convince a jury that the insurance company had violated state law or breached its contract when it denied coverage for the roofs. The homeowners association contended that the roof damage was due to a hail storm in 2007. The jury agreed with experts who contended the damage was already present at that time.

    Mr. Eggleston noted that “when your client is sued for a claim of $22 million, it is very satisfying to hear a jury agree that they in fact acted honorably and owed nothing.”

    Read the full story…


    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    After a period of growth, the construction industry lost 20,000 jobs in November, based on the federal jobs data. Damon Scott of New Mexico Business Weekly suggests that contractors may have laid off employees in anticipation of the “fiscal cliff.” Ken Simpson, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders said in a press release that “it is discouraging that construction employment is still struggling after three years of expansion in the overall economy.”

    Read the full story…


    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”

    After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.

    The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.

    In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.

    Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.

    In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.

    Read the court’s decision…


    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    November 7, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Our post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report on recent developments in the same case where the court determined, despite earlier finding the insurer owed a defense, it had no duty to indemnify. Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012).

    Hendricks contracted to “prepare the site and supply and install concrete, tamped concrete, and colored concrete” at several service stations. The owner sued Hendricks, alleging the concrete “was defective and/or the work performed was not done in a workman-like manner and resulted in damages, and will require replacement.”

    Pekin Insurance Company agreed to defend Hendricks subject to a reservation of rights.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com