BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort Anaheim California Medical building Anaheim California Subterranean parking Anaheim California condominium Anaheim California retail construction Anaheim California custom home Anaheim California low-income housing Anaheim California parking structure Anaheim California housing Anaheim California multi family housing Anaheim California hospital construction Anaheim California condominiums Anaheim California townhome construction Anaheim California concrete tilt-up Anaheim California office building Anaheim California industrial building Anaheim California landscaping construction Anaheim California high-rise construction Anaheim California custom homes Anaheim California production housing Anaheim California structural steel construction 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 Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Amerisure Case to be Heard by Texas Supreme Court

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

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

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

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

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

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

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Ohio Adopts Energy-Efficient Building Code

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

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

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

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

    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

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

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Arizona Homeowners Must Give Notice of Construction Defect Claims

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

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

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

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Park District Sues over Leaky Roof

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    California Lawyer Gives How-To on Pursuing a Construction Defect Claim

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

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

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Florida Construction Defect Case Settled for $3 Million

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

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

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

    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    United States District Court Confirms That Insurers Can Be Held Liable Under The CCPA.

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

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

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

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

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Statute of Repose Dependant on When Subcontractors Finished
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Anaheim California forensic architect architecture expert witnessAnaheim California forensic architect consulting general contractorAnaheim California forensic architect testifying construction expert witnessAnaheim California forensic architect delay claim expert witnessAnaheim California forensic architect structural concrete expertAnaheim California forensic architect construction forensic expert witnessAnaheim California forensic architect expert witness concrete failure
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A settlement agreement between Conti Electric and Westgate Resorts has lead to a delay in starting the trial over construction defect claims and billing disputes over Hilton Grand Vacations a time share tower in Las Vegas. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the dispute includes claims of $23.3 million owed to the general contractor against which the developer has placed $30 million in construction defect claims.

    Read the full story…


    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    May 26, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. American Building Materials, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-313-T-24-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011), insured drywall supplier ABM was sued by general contractor KB Homes seeking damages because property damage to houses built by KB Homes using defective Chinese drywall supplied by ABM. ABM’s CGL insurer Auto-Owners defended ABM under a reservation of rights and filed suit against ABM and KB Homes seeking a judicial declaration of no to duty to defend or indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit. On cross motions for summary, the federal district trial court directed entry of judgment in favor of ABM and KB Homes and against Auto-Owners, holding that Auto-Owners had a duty to defend and indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The United States District Court in Minnesota has determined that Steven and Cecilia Thundander cannot make a class-action claim against Uponor, Inc. over the plumbing in their home, as they do not have Article III standing. In this situation, the alleged defect is that Uponor made fraudulent claims that the pipes met National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) standards for use in potable water systems. Uponor submitted samples of other pipes, and their substitution was discovered when the NSF made an inspection of the manufacturing facility. The court noted that “the Thunanders contend that Uponor failed to inform homeowners, plumbers and consumers that it had been selling pipe that failed to meet NSF toxicity requirements at the time of sale and installation.”

    The Court noted that the Thunanders have not tested their piping to determine if they “demonstrate toxicity or lack of compliance with the NSF 61 standards,” noting also that the Complaint seeks to require Uponor to instruct the plaintiffs on “how to test the piping and water to determine the level of risk.” Lacking testing, the Court could not find that the Thundanders have defective pipes. The Court found that the “Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing as to their product liability claims.”

    The Court also concluded that it could not determine if the Plaintiff’s warranty actions could not be applied, as they “have failed to allege a plausible defect.” Even in the presence of a defect, the Court noted that more than eight years had passed before the filing of the suit, when the warranties under both Indiana and Minnesota law have a four-year statute of limitations. The Court also rejected the Thunanders tort claims, once again because “Plaintiffs have not tested their pipes,” noting that “a tort requires the existence of an injury.”

    In conclusion, Judge Nelson rejected the entirety of the complaint, granting the motions to dismiss by the defendants. However, despite the problems with the Thunanders’ claims, she found that they were not “patently frivolous or groundless.” Therefore, she denied attorney fees requested by one of the defendants.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Washington Township in Ohio has filed a lawsuit against Underground Utilities for their handling of construction fill on a road project. The City of Mansfield had hired the firm to improve road safety. The lawsuit is over the company’s actions in processing soil for fill, which they are doing on three vacant lots that are zoned for residential use. Washington Township Trustee Jack Butler told the Mansfield Journal that “what brought the lawsuit to a head was the fact that the contractor did not control the dust.” Subsequent receiving notices of zoning violations, the company began to move its operation to another site.

    Read the full story…


    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    CityCenter has filed an emergency motion asking the Nevada Supreme Court to intervene in Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez’ order that the building’s defects cannot be extrapolated from those tested. CityCenter’s structural engineering expert “evaluated 397 of the Harmon’s critical structural elements and found all but one defective,” according to the article on Vegas.Inc. Judge Gonzalez would not permit this to be extrapolated to the untested 1,072, as the locations tested were not random.

    Judge Gonzalez also ruled that if CityCenter does additional testing, they may not appeal her order that ruled the extrapolation inadmissible. CityCenter argued to the Nevada Supreme Court that “the notion that CityCenter should be forced to incur additional millions of dollars in testing costs and sanctions ?Äì on the condition that it waive its right to appeal this ruling ?Äì just to be permitted to present its own damages evidence, shocks the conscience.”

    Gonzalez gave the okay to CityCenter to demolish the building, but its demolition would make any further testing impossible. Under Gonzalez’ ruling, the untested structural elements cannot b assumed to be defective.

    Read the full story…


    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A new law in Florida ends suits from homeowners associations from suing over damages from off-site improvements on the basis of implied warranties. Rob Samouch, writing for the Naples Daily News quotes House Biill 1013: “There is no cause of action in law or equity available to a purchaser of a home or to a homeowners’ association based upon the doctrine or theory of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability or habitability for damages to off-site improvements." The off-site improvements are defined as: "The street, road, driveway, sidewalk, drainage, utilities, or any other improvement or structure that is not located on or under the lot on which a new home is constructed.”

    Mr. Samouch notes that “there are no statutory warrant rights in homeowner associations of fitness and merchantability or habitability like there is for condominium associations.” He predicts that the Florida legislature will have to address this issue “once new homeowners start screaming and yelling to them about their shoddy infrastructure for which they have no legal remedy.”

    The bill took effect on July 1, 2012 and applies to “all cases accruing before, pending on, or filed after July 1, 2012.”

    Read the full story…


    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Grout, which was used to protect the steel support cables of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, may lead to problems instead. The Baltimore Sun reports that the Federal Highway Administration is looking at three dozen bridges in twenty-one states that were built with defective grout. The grout contains high levels of chlorides, which can lead to corrosion. The collapse of pedestrian walkway in Concord, North Carolina was attributed to chloride contamination in the grout.

    The grout, SikaGrout 300PT, was advertised as "non-corrosive, does not contain chlorides," but later testing showed that it contained levels that exceeded limits by 400 percent. Throughout the country, about 16 million pounds of this were used. Sika Corp. suspended production of the grout in 2010. If repairs need to be made, it is unclear who will pay.

    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


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

    October 28, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    Here’s some good news for Oregon contractors:  Electronic Permitting is here. That’s right, no more standing in line with folders full of printed submittals and waiting all day for your permit. The click of a few buttons and you are in business. Great news, right? Unfortunately, Oregon isn’t sharing that celebration with Washington. So I say - why not?

    Last week, the State of Oregon released its new ePermitting online interface. The website allows contractors, owners and even local building departments to create an account, submit building plans and procure permits. With your account, you can track the progress of submissions, print documents and get posting information.

    The state ran a limited test version in the City of Florence since 2009, working out the kinks. Perhaps the most impressive result of the new system is that Oregon tackled the task of coagulating a local process into one central location.

    Read the full story...

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


    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Prairie Business reports that Fargo is experiencing the most new construction it has ever seen, totaling $434 million in value, which exceeds the previous high in 2006 of $428 million. Many of the construction starts are for single family homes, although there is also an increase in construction of apartments and townhomes.

    The Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead also noted that there was also a large of remodeling projects. Terry Becker, the president of the HBA, said that “remodeling is just huge right now.”

    Read the full story…


    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Determining that a community’s CC&Rs do not form an agreement to arbitrate, the California Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of the Superior Court inVerano Condo. Homeowners the Ass’n v. La Cima Dev., LLC (Cal. App., 2012). La Cima purchased an apartment complex in December 2004, which they converted into condominiums. In the process, La Cima created the CC&Rs, under which the Verano Condominium Homeowners Association came into being. One section of the CC&Rs included arbitration clauses. Additionally, the purchase agreements for individual condominium units also contained arbitration clauses. Subsequently, the owners became aware of construction defect both in units and in the common areas. The Association sued La Cima both in its own interest and on behalf of its members. La Cima moved to compel arbitration, which was denied by the trial court. La Cima appealed.

    The court concluded that “CC&Rs are insufficient to form an agreement to arbitrate between La Cima and the Association.” The court noted that “no evidence exists to show the Association consented to the terms of the CC&Rs, either explicitly or implicitly.”

    The court agreed with La Cima that the arbitration agreement applied to those owners who had purchased their units directly from La Cima. Moreover, as the conversion to condominiums involved interstate commerce, in part because a Delaware company was selling condominiums located in California, the court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied, and as such “even a state constitutional standard, such as the the jury waiver provision requirements of the California Constitution, cannot be used to circumvent the FAA in the face of an otherwise valid arbitration agreement.”

    However, the court also held that there was “no agreement in the CC&Rs between La Cima and owners who did not purchase units directly from La Cima,” adding that “no meeting of the minds between La Cima and these later purchasers and their successors occurred.” The court did not believe that “the Legislature intended that CC&Rs would be used to provide continuing and irrevocable contractual development or role as a representative of the owners of the development.”

    The purpose of the CC&Rs, according to the court are to “protect owners from one another and permit enforcement of its terms by the Association.” The court stated that “La Cima relinquished its interests in the land by selling its property and may not assert any rights under the CC&Rs following the transfer of its ownership interest.

    In its conclusion, the court determined that claims must be organized in three classes. The claims the association made against La Cima for defects in the common area “are not subject to any valid agreement to arbitrate.” The second category are those owners who did not purchase their units directly from La Cima. Here, also, the court found that the units “are similarly not subject to a valid arbitration agreement.”

    The third category, however, was “owners who purchased units directly from La Cima.” The court held that these arbitration agreements were valid, and if the claims were to be taken up by the association, the association could only submit these claims to arbitration. The lower court was instructed to separate these claims, as here La Cima’s motion could be granted.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Reporting on the site VegasInc.com, Liz Benton notes that “nobody wants to take the fall for what happened at Harmon.” Work on the Harmon hotel building in Las Vegas’s CityCenter stopped in 2008 after 26 of the planned 49 stories were completed. Lorence Slutzky, a construction law professor at John Marshall Law School and a partner with the Chicago firm Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor told Benton that while inspectors and others are complicit, “the real responsibility rests with Perini, which has an obligation to comply with the plan specifications.” Perini’s claim is that they were given faulty design drawings. MGM disputes this.

    Perini has offered to repair the building defects, however MGM has released a statement that they have “zero confidence or trust that Perini can and will properly fix a building it has so badly constructed thus far.” One MGM spokesperson likened these requests from Perini to “the director of ‘Ishar’ demanding a sequel.” “Ishtar,’ cost Columbia Pictures $55 million dollars and earned only $4.2 million in its initial run. Perini claims that MGM halted work because of the economy.

    Read the full story…


    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    December 20, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012).

    Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. 

    Read the full story…

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


    Ohio Adopts Energy-Efficient Building Code

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In a compromise between environmental groups, who were looking for stricter standards, and homebuilders, who were trying to contain building costs, the state of Ohio has adopted buildings codes that will increase the energy efficiency of new homes. The estimated costs are about $1,100 with estimated annual savings of $230. According to Corey Roblee of the International Code Council, “It’s something needed in the state of Ohio.”

    The Ohio Home Builders Association opposed a proposal to adopt the guidelines of the International Code Council. Builders will be able to either follow the ICC guidelines or they can use the Ohio guidelines to meet the same energy efficiency. Vincent Squillace, the executive vice president of the OHBA, said, “We came up with an equivalent code that’s more strict but is about $2,000 cheaper per home to implement than the original code.”

    The new code will require that at least 75% of lighting must be high efficiency, increases the degree of insulation, and specifies more efficient windows, among other changes.

    Read the full story…


    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In their fourth quarter earnings call, executives of Hovnanian Enterprises made some projections for investors, covering the company’s plans for 2012. During the call, Ara K. Hovnanian, the firm’s CEO, discussed their reserves to meet construction defect claims. The firm does an annual actuarial study of their construction defect reserves.

    Mr. Hovnanian noted that there have been no changes for the past several years, but this year they are increasing their reserves by about $6.3 million. Additionally, the firm has added $2.5 million to their legal reserves. Mr. Hovnanian stated “we do not anticipate that changes of this magnitude will be recurring as we look forward to 2012.”

    Read the full story…


    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    April 25, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Construction Law Hawaii

    After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).

    After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.

    The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.

    When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.

    Read the full story…

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


    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    November 18, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Town & Country Property, LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. 1100009 (Ala. Oct. 21, 2010), property owner Town & Country contracted with insured general contractor Jones-Williams for the construction of a car dealership. All of the construction work was performed by Jones-Williams subcontractors. After completion, Town & Country sued Jones-Williams for defective construction. Jones-Williams’ CGL insurer Amerisure defended. The case was tried and a judgment was entered against Jones-Williams in favor of Town & Country. After Amerisure denied any obligation to pay the judgment, Town & Country sued Amerisure in a statutory direct action.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com.


    Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Coverage for construction defects continues to be hotly contested in Hawaii state and federal courts. In a recent decision, Judge Mollway felt bound to follow the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2004), where the court found construction defect claims arise from breach of contract, not from an occurrence. Judge Mollway’s most recent decision on the issue is Illinois Nat. Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Constr., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58464 (D. Haw. April 26, 2012).

    Nordic constructed a grocery store for Safeway. In addition to the grocery store, Nordic built a 165-space rooftop parking deck, retail shops and related improvements. After opening for business in 2007, Safeway experienced significant leaks. Safeway demanded that Nordic repair the parking deck. Nordic sent the demand letter to the insurer, who agreed to appoint counsel subject to a reservation of rights.

    Safeway filed suit against Nordic in state court alleging, among other things, breach of contract and negligence. The insurer provided Nordic with a defense, but Nordic hired independent counsel.

    The insurer filed for declaratory relief in federal district court.

    Read the full story…