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

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

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

    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Restitution Unlikely in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

    Loss Caused by Seepage of Water Not Covered

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Insurer Has Duty to Disclose Insured's Interest In Obtaining Written Explanation of Arbitration Award

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

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

    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Association May Not Make Claim Against Builder in Vermont Construction Defect Case

    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

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

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

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

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Colorado “occurrence”

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

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Tucson Officials to Discuss Construction Defect Claim

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case
    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

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    June 6, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insured’s request for a defense when sued in a construction defect action was denied under the owned property exclusion and the alienated property exclusion in1777 Lafayette Partners v. Golden Gate Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48562 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2011).

    In 1999, Lafayette Partners purchased an abandoned walnut processing factory to convert into living and working units. The property was developed into a rental property from 2000-2001, and thereafter rented. In May 2003, Lafayette Partners entered into a sales agreement with Wolff Enterprises LLC. The sale closed in February 2005. Wolff then converted the rental units into condominiums.

    In December 2007, the Walnut Factory Owners Association sued Wolff for construction defects. In Lafayette Partners was added to the suit in 2009. The suit alleged a variety of defective conditions, including the roofs, exteriors, windows, electrical , plumbing, and mechanical components and systems.

    Read the full story…

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


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

    March 17, 2011 — By Shaun McParland Baldwin, March 17, 2011

    The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury or “property damage” be caused by an occurrence and that the “bodily injury or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury” or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.

    In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivanrsquo;s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing, including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com


    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Thomas Herink has been ordered to repay more than $5 million to his victims and will be serving three years of probation after 18 months in jail for defrauding banks and insurance companies, according to a report in the Insurance Journal. Herink falsified financial statements to lenders and insurers so that his company, Golf Services Group Inc. could participate in construction projects.

    Read the full story…


    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    S.J. Louis Construction of Texas Ltd. has been cited by OHSH for one serious and one repeat safety violation, according to a report in Insurance Journal. OSHA officials saw S.J. Louis employees working in an unshored trench along a highway service road. The company had cited for this violation previously. Without shoring of trenches deeper than five feet there is a risk of serious injury or death.

    Read the full story…


    Colorado Court of Appeals Rejects Retroactive Application of C.R.S. § 13-20-808.

    April 25, 2012 — Chad W. Johnson, Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC

    In TCD, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, TCD appealed the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of American Family. TCD, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Colo. App. No. 11CA1046 (April 12, 2012). TCD was the general contractor on a project to construct a building for Frisco General Gateway Center, LLC (“Gateway”). TCD subcontracted with a roofer named Petra Roofing and Remodeling Company (“Petra”) to performing the roofing work for the building. The subcontract required Petra to defend and indemnify TCD and to name TCD as an additional insured under its CGL policy. American Family issued a CGL policy to Petra that named TCD as an additional insured from 2006-2007.

    TCD filed suit against Gateway seeking payment for its work at the project. Gateway counterclaimed against TCD for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the CCPA. TCD demanded that American Family defend it from the counterclaims pursuant to Petra’s policies. American Family denied coverage and a separate coverage suit ensued. At the trial court level, the court entered summary judgment for American Family because the counterclaims of Gateway did not trigger the duty to defend or indemnify TCD as an additional insured.

    On appeal, TCD argued that: 1) the counterclaims raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding American Family’s duty to defend; 2) the court should hear evidence beyond the four corners of the complaint; and, 3) the court should apply C.R.S. § 13-20-808 retroactively.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Chad W. Johnson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com.


    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    August 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Seattle Times reports that a transit construction project has uncovered about twenty-five gravestones. The area was historically sensitive, as it is in territory once occupied by the Puyallup Tribe. At current report, no human remains have been found and the article cites the project?s archeological consultant as describing the gravestones as “not historically significant.”

    Read the full story…


    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The indictments continue in the Las Vegas HOA scandal. A lawyer for the Justice Department told the judge in the case that “we expect several indictments before the end of the year.” According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, “a dozen or more” additional people will be charged in the conspiracy.

    The judge in the case, Senior U.S. District Judge Lloyd George, told prosecutors that he wanted to address the issue of compensation for homeowners. Currently, defendants have agreed to pay $1.5 million to compensate homeowners associations and banks. Vistana homeowners have claimed that the conspirators got the bulk of a $19 million construction defect settlement.

    Read the full story…


    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    California safety officials are looking into the circumstances surrounding the death of a construction worker who fell from a roof in Tiburon, California. Another worker found Gabriel Vasquez unconscious at the site. Vasquez was later pronounced dead. The State Division of Occupational Safety and Health are trying to determine how Vasquez fell.

    Read the full story…


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

    August 2, 2012 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Recently, in the Arapahoe District Court, the Honorable Michael Spear, issued an order holding that builders do not owe a non-delegable duty to homeowners. In Marx and Corken v. Alpert Custom Homes, Inc., et al., Judge Spear’s order came in response to plaintiffs’ motion for determination of question of law seeking a finding that the defendants owed a non-delegable duty to the plaintiffs and thus, to strike defendants’ designation of nonparties at fault. After being fully briefed, Judge Spear, found that such a non-delegable duty does not exist.

    The case arises from the construction of a single-family residence in Aurora, Colorado. Through the construction and interaction with Alpert Custom Homes, Inc. and Scott and Sally Alpert, the defendants, Paul Marx and Kay Corken, the plaintiffs claimed they suffered various damages and losses, and brought claims for breach of contract-warranty, breach of contract, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, breaches of the implied covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, willful breach of contract, and quantum meruit. During litigation, the defendants filed a designation of nonparties at fault, which named several parties which were at fault for the alleged construction defects at issue in the case. The pertinent nonparties named were subcontractors of defendant Alpert Custom Homes, Inc. during the construction of the residence.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com


    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Seattle Times reports that groundbreaking is planned for a forty-story tower in Seattle. The building process will take at least five years, during which time, according to the paper, there will be nearly eight thousand new apartments in Seattle. The planned tower will add another 386 units to that.

    The developer, Holland Partner Group, has four other apartments buildings planned or in construction currently, which will account for more than a thousand of the units being added to the city’s apartment stock.

    Read the full story…


    Florida Law: Defects in Infrastructure Improvements Not Covered in Home Construction Warranties

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In April 2012, Governor Rick Scott signed into law House Bill 1013, despite lobbying from homeowner and condominium associations among others. The law was in response to a case in which the court had found that implied warranties covered external subdivision improvements. Prior to the court decision, these were not thought to be covered.

    According to an article in the Martindale-Hubble Legal Library, under the new law, road and drainage improvements will not be included implied warranty of a new home. The law took effect on July 1.

    Read the full story…


    Courts Are Conflicted As To Whether "Good Faith" Settlement Determinations Can Be Reviewed Via Writ Petition Or Appeal

    July 10, 2012 — Stephen A. Sunseri and Aarti Kewalramani, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

    The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, ruled in Oak Springs Villas Homeowners Association v. Advanced Truss Systems, Inc., et al., (June 14, 2012, B234568) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2012 WL 2149923], that a non-settling defendant cannot appeal a trial court's good faith settlement determination. Instead, a non-settling defendant may only file a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 to challenge a good faith determination. This decision comes on the heels of a 2011 ruling in Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, which found that a writ petition is not the sole means of challenging a trial court's good faith settlement determination.

    In Oak Springs Villas, supra, the condominium homeowners' association sued a developer, general contractor, and various subcontractors for alleged construction deficiencies and resultant property damage. The association eventually settled with the developer, but not with a truss manufacturer. The trial court approved the developer's motion for good faith settlement determination, and the truss manufacturer immediately appealed, instead of filing a writ petition. On appeal, the developer argued the good faith determination was not an appealable order. The truss manufacturer argued Cahill applied, as well as an older case, Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19 Cal.3d 564, which allowed for appeals when no remaining issues exist as to the appealing party.

    The Court of Appeal ruled in the developer's favor and declined to follow Cahill, stating the truss manufacturer should have filed a writ petition, as expressly required under Section 877.6, subdivision (e). The Court also believed Justus was inapplicable because a non-settling party should not be allowed to have two review opportunities ?Äì one after an adverse good faith ruling, and then another after the ultimate conclusion of the case.

    However, the greater effect is that Cahill and Oak Springs Villas simultaneously stand in conflict and appear to be valid law. One case allows for an appeal of a good faith settlement determination, while the other requires strict adherence to the statute. The Supreme Court is likely to review the issue. In the meantime, parties challenging good faith rulings are advised to consult the statutory requirements under Section 877.6, subdivision (e).

    Printed courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri and Aarti Kewalramani, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP. Mr. Sunseri can be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com and Ms. Kewalramani can be contacted at akewalramani@gdandb.com.


    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Quoting one homeowner as saying that his house “can fall in the ground for all I care, I made my money,” the Tampa Bay Times looks at the issue of sinkhole claims in Florida. Homeowners “have paid off mortgages, put in pools, replaced roofs, or otherwise used money from sinkhole claims to do something besides fix sinkhole damage.

    It’s been tough for insurance companies. Citizens Property Insurance took in $32 million in premiums for sinkhole coverage in 2010, but paid out $245 million in sinkhole claims. The Tampa Bay Times notes that some of those claims come from settling problems caused by their repairs, including one settlement of $350,000 for repairs to a house worth $39,000.

    One couple, after receiving $217,000 from Citizens, sold the house to a company that bought unrepaired sinkhole homes for $190,000. The home has been sold since and remains unrepaired.

    Sometimes the preferred solution by the insurance company isn’t the cheapest either. One couple was informed that Citizens was going to spend $150,000 to have the hole filled with grout. After they settled with the insurance company, they fixed the problem by installing steel piers, at a cost of about $45,000.

    Read the full story…


    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

    Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

    Read the full story...


    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    November 18, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Application of the facts to the "your work" exclusion was the key to resolving coverage issued in Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech L.L.C., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21076 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011).

    Ergon Refining, Inc. hired Cat Tech L.L.C. to service a hydrotreating reactor. In January 2005, Cat Tech replaced certain parts in the reactor. After Cat Tech finished the job and left, Ergon noticed a high pressure drop in the reactor, forcing it to be shut down. Cat Tech returned in February 2005, removed, repaired and replaced the damaged parts, and loaded new parts. After completion, a second large pressure drop occurred during the reactor’s start-up process. The reactor was shut down until October 2005, when Ergon hired a different contractor to perform the repair work. Additional damage to the reactor was found.

    Read the full story…

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


    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    April 4, 2011 — April 4, 2011 in CDCoverage.com

    In American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Girl, Inc., 673 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 2004), the insured general contractor was hired by the owner to design and build a warehouse on the owner s property. The general contractor hired a soil engineer to do a soil analysis and make site preparation recommendations. The soil engineer determined that the soil conditions were poor and recommended a compression process which the general contractor followed. After the warehouse was completed and the owner took possession, excessive soil settlement caused the foundation to sink which in turn caused structural damage to the warehouse. The warehouse had to be torn down.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A homeowners’ association in Lake Oswego, Oregon has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the developers of the luxury townhomes. The homeowners of Sunset Crossing are suing Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes over claims that construction defects have lead to water intrusion and structural damages. The townhomes were built in 2005.

    Andy Burns, the lawyer for Phillip and Patricia Gentelmann, the owners of both Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes, said the Gentelmanns were “taking these allegations very seriously.” The suit says that the construction violated state and local building codes and that the firms did not repair damage caused by water intrusion.

    Read the full story…


    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    American West Development attempted to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 27, but their plan was turned down by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Mike Nakagawa. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Judge Nakagawa rejected the plan over a trust fund for construction defects. America West’s attorney said they were hoping to complete the process by the end of the year.

    Under approved portions of the plan, America West’s owner, Lawrence Canarelli, will retain control of the corporation, although he must contribute $10 million into the firm and an additional $1.5 million into the fund for construction defects. America West faces charges for construction defects reported in the broad range of “less than $20 million” to “as much as $80 million.”

    Read the full story…