BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction Anaheim California high-rise construction Anaheim California custom homes Anaheim California custom home Anaheim California condominiums Anaheim California production housing Anaheim California concrete tilt-up Anaheim California mid-rise construction Anaheim California hospital construction Anaheim California multi family housing Anaheim California landscaping construction Anaheim California industrial building Anaheim California institutional building Anaheim California casino resort Anaheim California office building Anaheim California condominium Anaheim California low-income housing Anaheim California housing Anaheim California townhome construction Anaheim California retail construction Anaheim California Subterranean parking Anaheim California tract home 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

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

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

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    Ninety-Day Extension Denied to KB Home in Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

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

    District Court’s Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

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

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

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

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

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

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

    Florida trigger

    Insurer Settles on Construction Defect Claim

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Construction Defects Leave Animal Shelter Unusable

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    California Supreme Court Binds Homeowner Associations To Arbitration Provisions In CC&Rs

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Anaheim, California Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The National Association of Home Builders reports that spending on private homes was up three percent in October 2012, bringing it to a four-year high. This was part of a trend in which fourteen of the last fifteen months have seen increases in spending on residential construction. Likewise, multifamily residences have seen thirteen months of increased spending, putting it 82% higher than its low, two years ago. ¬?In addition to new homes, remodeling is also up, reaching its highest point in five years.

    Read the full story…


    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Landslide and Water Leak

    June 19, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insured unsuccessfully attempted to get around the policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause by arguing a covered cause of loss was a contributing factor. See Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63217 (D. Mass. May 4, 2012).

    A building at the insured’s storage facility was damaged when heavy rain caused a mass of soil to slide down a slope, causing soil and a retaining wall to fall on the building. The accident caused a partial collapse of the building. The insurer hired two soil engineers, each of whom concluded that a landslide caused the accident. The reports also noted, however, that a leak from the property’s drainage system resulted in a very small percentage of water infiltrating the ground.

    The insurer denied coverage based upon an exclusion for landslides.

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

    Read the full story…


    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    VegasInc.com reports that U.S. District Judge James Mahan has unsealed fourteen more criminal cases in the ongoing Las Vegas HOA corruption probe. One of the fourteen is Lisa Kim, whose Platinum Community Services managed communities in which Nancy Quon and Leon Benzer were involved.

    Two attorneys were also named. Brian Jones had previously been named in civil litigation as working to rig HOA elections in favor of the straw buyers. Jeanne Winkler had done legal work for one of the communities and for the developer before her disbarment.

    Eight of the names released were of alleged straw buyers. These individuals are said to have bought fractional shares of homes so they could stand for election on the HOA boards. One of the individuals named, Arnold Meyers, had sued the Jasmine Homeowners Association, claiming that their HOA elections were tainted. Myers claimed that homeowners received postcards stating that he did not own his condo. His suit was dropped after two homeowners claimed that their names had been forged on Meyer’s affidavits.

    Read the full story…


    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court in Seattle has rejected most of the claims made by a Des Moines man over insurance coverage for water damage to his home. Judge John C. Coughenour granted summary judgment to Liberty Northwest in Ayar v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation.

    Sayad Ayar was the general contractor for the construction of his house. As a homeowner held a $1.5 million insurance policy from Liberty Northwest (LNW) that excluded “faulty, inadequate, or defective construction.”

    In 2008, less than three years after his house was constructed, Mr. Ayar filed a claim after water leaked through his living room ceiling. LNW hired an engineering firm to investigate the damage. The engineering firm, CASE Forensics, concluded that the water intrusion was due to “the failure to install an adequate and continuous waterproof membrane, flashing, and drainage system within the balcony at the time of construction.” Ayar’s expert attributed the leakage to “damage done to the weather deck waterproofing during a storm event with high winds,” which would be covered under the policy. CASE Forensics reviewed these conclusions and rejected them. LNW denied coverage.

    Further problems lead to further investigations, and in each case, LNW attributed the problems to construction defects. During this process, LNW “authorized Ayar to cut into the ceiling’s drywall in order to assist in determining the source of the water intrusion.” Mr. Ayar moved his family to a rental home. He requested that LNW cover the rental and other other costs.

    LNW’s adjuster concluded that no coverage was available, but recommended paying Mr. Ayar $19,648.68 to reinstall drywall and repair the hole in the ceiling. The insurance company paid $2,000 to cover the cost of cutting into the ceiling. The also claimed the amount of drywall he removed was “excessive” and would not cover his relocation as “his home had been livable and because the loss was not covered.”

    Ayar made four claims to the court in support of the argument that LNW misrepresented “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” The court rejected three of these, noting that as all water damage was excluded, LNW’s citation of other sources of water intrusion was not a misrepresentation. “LNW did not rely on this provision as the reason for denying coverage.” Nor was LNW’s reference to “fungi, wet or dry rot” a misrepresentation. As for their reference to construction defects, it “was clearly appropriate given that the construction defect exclusion was the principal basis or denying the claim.” However, the court found that regarding the removal of drywall, “a triable issue of the facts exists.”

    Ayar also claimed that LNW did not conduct a reasonable investigation, but the court found no evidence to support this conclusion. “This is not a case where the insurer failed to investigate or did so only half-heartedly.” Although the thoroughness of the investigation could not questioned, the court concluded that its timing could. Ayar claimed that LNW engaged in unreasonable delays. LNW counters that the delays were due to “Ayar’s own obstructive behavior and failure to cooperate with LNW’s investigation.”

    The court dismissed all of Ayar’s claims, with the exception of whether LNW should have informed him that they would not pay for drywall repair unless there was damage, and whether LNW’s investigation failed to conclude its investigation within a thirty-day time line.

    Read the court’s decision…


    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The high school gym in Lake Oswego, Oregon has been shut down because testing has revealed that the construction defects have lead to deterioration of the structural integrity of the roof. The school district noted that there was a chance of collapse if there were a “significant seismic event or heavy rain and winds and snow.” The school district has been in a lawsuit with the builders since 2008, which was recently settled for $600,000.

    The school board is still determining whether the original contractor will be asked to correct the defect or if they will bid the job out.

    Read the full story...


    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    August 17, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Coverage was denied under the policy’s condominium exclusion in California Traditions, Inc. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co.,2011 Cal. App.LEXIS912 (Cal. Ct. App., ordered published July 11, 2011).

    California Traditions was the developer and general contractor for a housing development. California Traditions subcontracted with Ja-Con to perform the rough framing work for 30 residential units. The project had 146 separate residences that were freestanding with no shared walls, roof, halls, or plumbing or electrical lines. To allow a higher density development, the project was developed, marketed and sold as condominiums.

    The purchaser of one of the units filed a complaint against California Traditions alleging property damage from the defective construction. California Traditions cross-complained against Ja-Con.

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    March 16, 2011 — March 16, 2011 Construction Defect Journal Staff

    According to a story published last Thursday in Seattle PI: " The 25-story McGuire Apartments, at Second Avenue and Wall Street, would cost more to fix than the building is worth, according to its owners. Its most serious defect involves steel cables that are corroding inside of concrete slabs because the ends weren’t properly treated with a rust-proof coating and a pocket in the edge of the concrete that wasn’t properly sealed"

    The report by Aubrey Cohen outlines the demolition plans which are expected to take between 12 and 18 months, and will utilize robotic Brokk Machines. The demolition plan calls for one story at a time to be demolished, with the debris to be trucked offsite. Demolition plans aim to minimize disruption to residents and businesses in the area by Limiting work 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays with "impact and percussive activities" limited to 8 a.m to 5 p.m weekdays.

    Read More...


    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding no coverage due to exclusions from the all-risk policy for losses related to mold, rot and condensation. Koskovich v. Am Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 581 (Minn. Ct. App. June 25, 2012).

    In 1978, the insureds purchased a home that was built in 1904. From 1991 to 1995, they remodeled, which included rotating the house 45 degrees, removing a wing and adding a new section. Polypropylene vapor barriers were installed, with pinholes for ventilation.

    In 2008, water was observed on an interior floor. An investigation revealed that the sheathing under the siding and the house's framing were wet and rotten, requiring removal and replacement of the siding and studs. Repairs were made and a claim was submitted to American Family Mutual Insurance Company.

    American's structural engineer inspected and determined that moisture was likely caused by condensation of water vapor where the vapor barrier was held tight to the sheathing and by inward water migration from wet siding during rainy periods through the vapor-barrier perforations. The structural engineer opined that, although the home's framing was deteriorated and structurally compromised, it did not appear as though the home was in imminent danger of collapse.

    American denied coverage.

    Read the full story…

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


    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    One of the odder twists of the Las Vegas construction defect scandal was the charge that Nancy Quon’s boyfriend helped her in an initial suicide attempt. Quon, implicated by not charged in the case of taking control of homeowner boards in order to profit from construction defect settlements. William Webb was alleged to have bought the drug GBH in order to allow Quon, his girlfriend, to commit suicide. Ms. Quon later overdosed on a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.

    In addition to pleading guilty to the drug charges, Webb also made a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he did not admit guilt in an insurance fraud charge, but acknowledged that prosecutors would likely be successful at obtaining a conviction. Webb will be sentenced February 7 and is expected to receive a sentence of six years imprisonment.

    Read the full story…


    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    June 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    Well, it finally made it. The most important Washington lien case of recent memory was argued in front of the Washington Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 14, 2011. So, what should we all expect?

    As I was reading through my RSS feeds this afternoon ? I was stopped dead in my tracks. Williams v . Athletic Field, the Division II case that has been a frequent topic here on Builders Counsel, has finally been argued before the Supreme Court. All of you who have been anxiously awaiting this day, you can check out the Supreme Court submissions by following this link.

    The Williams case has been the center of attention for construction lawyers and construction organizations over the past year. Some have called for complete lien law reform, others have tried to patch a hole in the law. Now, we can expect a ruling from the highest court in the state. That ruling will have a major impact on whether the Legislature feels compelled to change lien law.

    Read the full story…

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


    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

    Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

    The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

    Read the full story…


    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    David Thamann, writing in Property Casualty 360, argues that current actions by legislatures on insurance coverage amount to “legislative interference or overreach.” He notes that under current Colorado law, “a court shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage — including damage to the work itself or other work — is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured.” He argues that here legislators are stepping into the role of the courts. “Insureds and insurers are not always going to be pleased with a court ruling, but that is the system we have.”

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

    The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

    Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

    The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

    The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

    The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

    The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    You can buy a lot of bandages for $270 million, but even though the expenses are related to the New York City schools, the money is being budgeted by the School Construction Agency as what they expect to pay for injuries and liability expenses related to school construction. The New York Post notes that this is nearly ten times what the city spent in 2000 on workers' compensation and liability claims. Michael Elmdendorf of the General Contractors Association likened injury compensation to a broken slot machine, telling the Post, "when you pull that lever, you win." A spokesperson from the Department of Education, Margie Feinberg, attributed the rise to higher medical care costs.

    Read the full story…


    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    July 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Perception Construction Management v. Bell. The Bells hired PCM to build a log home, agreeing to play monthly invoices in full within ten days. The Bells paid the first four invoices in full, part of the fifth, and ceased payment after that. Beofre seventh invoice, the Bells terminated the contract and hired a new contractor. PCM filed a claim of lien and ceased work.

    The Bells responded that PCM was in breach of contract and had failed to fulfill the contract in a workmanlike manner. They claimed construction defects and in the lien suit, sought to include testimony from an architect and a plumber reviewing PCM’s work. The court only allowed the architect to testify as to whether the amount of the lien was reasonable. No testimony was permitted from the plumber.

    The Idaho Supreme Court concluded that the claims of construction defects were important to case and remanded it to the lower court for a new trial taking into evidence that Bell’s contention that PCM’s work was defective.

    Read the court’s decision


    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

    The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

    D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

    “(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

    The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

    The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

    Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

    The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    January 6, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Relying on the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the court determined coverage potentially existed for damage caused by water. Union Sav. Bank v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134398 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2011).

    The Tods purchased property that was mortgaged by Union Savings. The Tods obtained a Landlords Policy for the property from Allstate. When the Tods were in default on their loan, Union Savings notified them that foreclosure proceedings would commence. Union Savings sent an appraiser to the property who discovered water in the basement. Water and electricity to the building were off. Union Savings notified Allstate and later filed a formal claim under the mortgagee clause in the Landlords Policy. This clause stated, "A covered loss will be payable to the mortgagees named on the policy declaration. . . ."

    Allstate denied coverage, citing exclusions for water damage.

    Read the full story…

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


    Restitution Unlikely in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the money lost in the Las Vegas HOA fraud cause is probably not recoverable. Victims of the scam have asked the court for restitution, but Judge Lloyd George doubts any of the money will be found, saying “the money is not available, it would appear.”

    One Vistana board members not part of the conspiracy told reporters that the $8 million construction defect settlement never went for needed repairs. “Within six months that money was gone,” said Bruce Wallace, a retired Air Force colonel. After the construction defect account was depleted to $450,000, two board members disappeared with the funds.

    Read the full story…