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

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

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

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

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

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

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

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

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    Discovery Ordered in Nevada Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

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

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

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

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Utah Construction Defect Claims Dependant on Contracts

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Plaintiff Not Entitled to Further Damages over Defective Decking

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

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

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

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

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

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

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

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

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

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Anaheim's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    July 8, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    KCBD reports on the problems of a Lubbock, Texas contractor. It’s hard to do the job when your tools keep getting stolen. Corey Meadows, owner of Top Cut Interiors, told KCBD that he had chained an air compressor to a table saw. Since the thieves couldn’t cut the chain, they cut the table saw “and just took the air compressor and the chain.” Meadows estimates the thieves cost him $2,000 in damaged or stolen equipment and time lost.

    Read the full story…


    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A school district in northeastern Pennsylvania has retained legal services as they approach the end of a construction project. The Mid Valley School Board cited concerns about the project’s budget, but Randy Parry, Superintendent of Mid Valley schools referenced “possible litigation at the end of the project.” Mr. Parry told the Scranton Times Tribune that construction delays could be a reason for litigation.

    In addition to approving an additional $20,000 for legal representation, the board also approved $21,579 for additional project costs.

    Read the full story…


    Product Exclusion: The Big Reason Behind The Delay of LEED 2012

    July 10, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    By now, you have probably heard that the USGBC has decided to delay implementation of its previously named “LEED 2012” rating system. What you might not know is exactly why this is happening. Rest assured that the decision was not made willy nilly ?Äì LEED 2012 had many industrial groups running for the hills.

    I have spent the past few weeks reading a number of articles on the backlash. LEED 2012 was intended to create a seismic shift; it was not a mere update. A strict focus on reduction of chemicals, created mass panic that a large number of material providers’ products would essentially be banned from green projects ?Äì meaning most local, state and federal projects.

    Read the full story…

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


    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Record Searchlight reports that while new construction is down in Redding, California, residential and commercial remodel permits are up 17 percent. By August 2010, there had been 63 housing and commercial business starts in Redding, while this year has seen only 15.

    One such remodel, that of Parkview Market, will cost about $201,000. Safeway is planning on two $80,000 remodels of its grocery stores in Redding. In all, the 150 building permits for remodels are worth a total of $2.8 million.

    Read the full story…


    Utah Construction Defect Claims Dependant on Contracts

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    An owner who wants to sue a subcontractor directly may find limited ability to do so under Utah court decisions. Writing on the JDSupra site, Stewart O. Peay and Mark O. Morris of Snell & Wilmer discuss the distinction the Utah courts make between contractor (with whom an owner has direct contracts) and subcontractors (with whom an owner does not). In the Utah courts, construction defect claims must be based on contract, rather than tort. With no contract, there is no way to pursue claims against a subcontractor alone.

    They note that the Utah couts do not “accept negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims that many other jurisdictions embrace.” They recommend that in setting up contracts for a construction project, owners should ensure that they are provided with “third-party beneficiary rights to purse claims against subs.” They suggest that “the owner may require his generals to include language in the various subcontracts that incorporates some or all of the terms of the prime contract into the subcontracts.” Additionally they suggest that the owner “require the general to include ‘flow down’ provisions in the various subcontracts.”

    Read the full story…


    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Professor Evan McKenzie of the University of Illinois at Chicago says that rise of construction defect litigation in the Las Vegas area followed the same pattern it did in other places, according to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal. “Step one,” according to Professor McKenzie, “there was this enormous growth in construction. Then these attorneys began to swarm in from all over, especially Southern California.” McKenzie noted that during a building boom, construction “outpaces the ability of building inspectors to do their job.”

    But, despite his contention that “rapid growth in housing stock” leads to “shoddy construction,” another problem of growth was that “eventually there were too many lawyers chasing too many condominium complexes and subdivisions.” What came next was that “attorneys start coming up with cases that really aren’t good cases.” It’s in the interest of these attorneys that HOA boards sue.

    Read the full story…


    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    April 14, 2011 — April 14, 2011 - CDCoverage.com

    In Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Centex Homes, No. C 10-02757 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011), general contractor Centex was sued by homeowners for construction defects. Centex tendered its defense to Travelers as an additional insured under policies issued by Travelers to two Centex subcontractors. Travelers agreed to defend Centex under a reservation of rights and selected defense counsel to defend Centex. Centex refused to accept the defense, asserting that it was entitled to select defense counsel. Travelers filed suit against Centex seeking a declaratory judgment that Centex had breached the duty to cooperate condition in the Travelers’ policy.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A summary judgment was affirmed in the case of Brown v. Farmers Group, by the California Court of Appeals. The Browns bought a new home in Oakley, California. At the time, they signed disclosure statement “acknowledging that the area around their home experienced gusty winds and would be in development for years to come, which might result in dust and airborne mold.”

    The Browns found an unusual amount of dust in their home, which became worse when they ran their heating and air conditioning system. Shelia Brown was later diagnosed with chronic valley fever, which was attributed to airborne mold. The Browns contacted Farmers which investigated the house. Although the adjustor from Farmers said the Browns would be covered, Farmers denied the claim.

    After the Browns moved out of the house, an inspector found that the HVAC line in the attic was disconnected, sending dust into the home. The Browns brought action against Mid-Century Insurance, which managed the policy, and Farmers. The identified the HVAC defect, window problems, and valley fever as causes, suing for breach of contact, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    The court rejected all these claims. The policy with Farmers excluded losses due to defective construction. This ruled out the faulty HVAC system and any problems there might have been from the windows. The policy also specifically excluded losses from contamination, fungi, pathogens, and noxious substances. The court further found that the adjustor’s opinion was irrelevant to the question of what the policy actually covered. Finally, the court found no evidence of intentional infliction of emotional stress.

    On review, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s conclusions and affirmed the summary judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…


    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In a decision with great implications for construction defect suits in California, the California Supreme Court has ruled in Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development that arbitration clauses binding on the members of the association are also binding on the association itself. They concluded this, even though “the association did not exist as an entity independent of the developer when the declaration was drafted and recorded.” The opinion, written by Justice Baxter, was joined by four additional justices, with two separate concurrences and a dissenting opinion by Justice Kennard.

    The Pinnacle homeowners sought to bring suit over construction defect claims. In response, the developer filed a motion to compel arbitration. The association argued that the arbitration clause signed by its individual members was not binding on it. The Appeals Court invalidated the arbitration agreement “finding it marked by slight substantive unconscionability and high degree of procedural unconscionability. The Appeals Court determined that “for all intents and purposes, Pinnacle was the only party to the ‘agreement,’ and there was no independent homeowners association when Pinnacle recorded the CC&R’s.” However, the California Supreme Court said that this was “not persuasive in light of the statutory and contract principles in play.”

    The opinion notes that “the Project CC&R’s provides that Pinnacle and, by accepting a deed to any portion of the Project property, the Association and each individual condominium owner agree to submit any construction dispute to binding arbitration in accordance with the FAA.” The Court noted that “settled principles of condominium law establish that an owners association, like its constituent members, must act in conformity with the terms of a recorded declaration,” which, as the Court notes, includes the CC&Rs.

    After finding that the terms were binding on the Association, the Court then questioned whether the terms were “unenforceable as unconscionable,” noting that “the party resisting arbitration bears the burden of proving unconscionability.” But the Court found that “the arbitration provisions of article XVIII are not substantively unconscionable.” Additionally, they found “no support for the Association’s claims of unfairness and absence of mutuality.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Florida trigger

    May 18, 2011 — May 18, 2011 - CDCoverage.com

    In Johnson-Graham-Malone, Inc. v. Austwood Enterprises, Inc., No. 16-2009-CA-005750-XXXX-MA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Duval County, April 29, 2011), insured JGM was the general contractor for an apartment project completed in 1998. In 2007, the project owner sued JGM seeking damages for defective construction resulting in moisture penetration property damage. JGM tendered its defense to Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense. JGM defended and settled the underlying suit and then filed suit against Amerisure seeking recovery of defense and settlement costs. The trial court granted JGM’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court first addressed Amerisure’s duty to defend. Applying Florida law, the court held that, although the underlying complaint alleged that the property damage was not discovered until after expiration of the Amerisure policies

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    March 28, 2012 — Brady Iandiorio, Colorado Construction Litigation

    Writing in Construction Law Colorado, Brady Iandiorio revisits the case Continental Western v. Shay Construction. He promises to continue to follow cases dealing with Colorado HB 10-1394.

    Recently the Court ruled on two Motions to Reconsider filed by Defendants Milender White and Shay Construction.

    Procedurally, the Motions to Reconsider were ruled on by the Honorable William J. Martinez, because the day after the motions were filed the action was reassigned to Judge Martinez. In the short analysis of the Motion to Reconsider, the court leaned on Judge Walker D. Miller’s ruling on the summary judgment and his analysis of the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions.

    As a quick refresher regarding the grant of summary judgment, Judge Miller agreed with Continental Western’s argument that the asserted claims were excluded under the “damage to property” exclusion. The policy’s exclusions state: “(j) Damage to Property . . . (5) that particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations; or (6) that particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because ‘your work’ was incorrectly performed on it.” Judge Miller found that both exclusions (j)(5) and (6) applied to both Shay’s allegedly defective work.

    Read the full story…

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


    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Illinois Attorney General has filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that two connected firms took money from homeowners and then failed to perform the contracted work. One of the three defendants, Chris Bidigare, was an owner of agent of both Fairway Construction and Maintenance Services, LLC, and Rock Construction Management, LLC.

    In once case, according to the article on the OakPark Patch, one homeowner provided a $111,000 down payment, only to have the company cancel the job and refuse to return the money. One homeowner was told by Fairway that she should contact their insurance provider. The insurance provider told her that Fairway’s insurance had been cancelled due to non-payment.

    The suit seeks to bar the three defendants from working in home repair in Illinois.

    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


    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…


    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Eleventh District of the US Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Nix v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. In this case, the Nixes filed a claim after a portion of the retaining wall in their home collapsed and their basement flooded. State Farm denied the claim “on the ground that the policy excluded coverage for collapses caused by defects in construction and for damage caused by groundwater.”

    The court reviewed the Nixes’ policy and found that State Farm’s statement did specifically exclude both of these items. In reviewing the lower court’s ruling, the appeals court noted that State Farm’s expert witness, Mark Voll, determined that the retaining wall “lacked reinforcing steel, as required by a local building code, and could not withstand the pressure created by groundwater that had accumulated during a heavy rainfall.” Additionally, a french drain had been covered with clay soil and so had failed to disperse the groundwater.

    The Nixes argued that the flooding was due to a main line water pipe, but their opinions were those of Terry Nix and the contractor who made temporary repairs to the wall. “Those opinions were not admissible as lay testimony. Neither Nix nor the contractor witnessed the wall collapse or had personal knowledge about the construction of the Nixes’ home.”

    The lower court granted a summary judgment to State Farm which has been upheld by the appeals court.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    May 26, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    An arbitration panel has ruled that problems with the Idaho home of actors Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were not due to construction defects but rather to “poor design and bad architectural advice.” The couple had settled with the architectural firm, Lake Flato of San Antonio, Texas for $900,000 and was subsequently seeking $3 million from Storey Construction of Ketchum, Idaho.

    Problems with the couple’s home “included leaking roofs, inadequate drainage, fireplaces that did not vent properly and an inadequate air-conditioning system. In 2003, sliding snow from the roof damaged kitchen windows and roof components.”

    The arbitration panel, according to the report in the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide, noted that “Hanks and Wilson were responsible for the full $167,623 cost of arbitration, but further denied a Storey Construction counterclaim that alleged Hanks and Wilson filed their claim out of malice.”

    Read the full story…


    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    As of May, only 61 residential construction permits have been issues in Roanoke County, Virginia, leaving officials doubtful that this year will meet last year’s mark of 179 permits. Residential construction was at its highest in the county in 2004. The worst year since then was 2009, when the county issued 143 permits. The county is in the western end of the state, near the border with West Virginia, and far from the D.C. metropolitan area.

    Arnold Covey, the Director of Community Development for the county said that “it may be until 2014 before we really see a difference. The article by WDBJ7.com notes that a “key part” of the county budget comes from real estate.

    Read the full story…


    Condo Owners Worried Despite Settlement

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    KB Homes may have settled a construction defect claim with Willowbrook Condominium Association, but some of the owners are still concerned about the repair process. The Sarasota, Florida Herald Tribune reports that one homeowner’s living room “ends with a white tarp.” He told the paper, “We feel like we’re not even owners of our own home.” A neighbor wondered “what happens when people get displaced while their homes are gutted?”

    As part of the agreement, the condominium association will be selecting a contractor to repair the problems, while the cost will be paid by KB Homes. Nevertheless, at least one owner fears for their ability to resell his home, noting that even after repairs have been made, “do you think someone’s going to come in here and buy?”

    Read the full story…