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

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Arizona Homeowners Must Give Notice of Construction Defect Claims

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

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

    Timing of Insured’s SIR Payment Has No Effect on Non-Participating Insurer’s Equitable Contribution to Co-Insurer

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

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

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

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

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

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

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

    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

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

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

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

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    Architect Not Liable for Balcony’s Collapse

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

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

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

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

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

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

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

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

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

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

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

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

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

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Anaheim California general contracting architecture expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting building code compliance expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting multi family design expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction safety expertAnaheim California general contracting construction project management expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting OSHA expert witness constructionAnaheim California general contracting slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting building code expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting defective construction expert
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    August 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Patriot-Ledger reports that insurers could pay out as much as $200 million to cover homes damaged or destroyed in the tornadoes that hit central and southern Massachusetts in June, 2011. Joseph Murphy, Commissioner of the State Division of Insurance didn?t foresee problems with insurers covering these claims. “At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any one company overexposed in that area,” he told the Patriot-Ledger.

    Insurance executives did not think the tornadoes would cause them to raise rates. Steve Chevalier, CEO of NLC Companies, said, “it’s a major event for those impacted by it, but it’s not close to a financial hit to us.”

    One insurer noted that the winter weather generated more claims; however the cumulative value of those claims was $15 million.

    Read the full story…


    Water District Denied New Trial in Construction Defect Claim

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The United District Court in Tampa, Florida has rejected the motion by Tampa Bay Water for a new trial in their claims that HDR Engineering negligently designed the C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The claims went to a jury trial, at the end of nineteen days, the jury deliberated for four hours, finding for HDR Engineering. In rejecting Tampa Bay’s motion, the judge noted that “on close examination, TBW’s contentions have little to do with the factual determinations of the jury, which evidently concluded that TBW did not meet its burden of proof, an unsurprising conclusion, considering HDR’s evidence and the weaknesses in TBW’s evidence.”

    The court cited an earlier decision that “a new trial may be granted where the jury’s ‘verdict is against the great, not merely the greater weight of the evidence.’” However, the court found that the jury’s verdict “was well supported by the evidence” and that “TBW’s case showed signs of weakness at virtually every turn.” TBW’s expert “changed his opinion late in the case concerning the culpability of the contractor.” As a result, “Brumund’s change in opinions effectively bolstered HDR’s faulty construction defense.”

    TBW also raised claims a pre-trial order prevented it “from introducing evidence that HDR did not fulfill its contractual quality control responsibilities” and that evidentiary rulings prevented “TBW from introducing evidence concerning quality control.” However, TBW dismissed its claims over quality control, then “attempted no less than three times during ?Ķ testimony to introduce evidence of the purpose of the quality control requirement and quality control assurance.”

    TBW also contended “that it was precluded from introducing evidence that HDR’s inspectors never reported that the protective layer exceeded three feet after inspecting the work as part of HDR’s quality control duties.” The court noted that “TBW asked these very questions of HDR’s Engineer of Record.” The court also found that testimony regarding photographs of the construction was properly excluded as TBW never entered the photos into evidence.

    TBW had made an argument for a jury view. Prior the trial “after discussion, and to their credit, the parties agreed to a jointly-prepared helicopter ‘flyover’ video.” The court noted that “the size and physical characteristics of the reservoir were adequately and effectively depicted in the video.” The hazards the jury did not, then, have to encounter included the narrow, unpaved rim of the reservoir, snakes, and alligators.

    Read the court’s decision…



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

    May 9, 2011 — May 9, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    California Assemblyman Furutani has introduced a bill that if passed would eliminate the ten year statute of repose in certain construction defect cases. The statute of repose would not apply when “an action in tort to recover damages for damage to real or personal property, or for personal injury or wrongful death from exposure to hazardous or toxic materials, pollution, hazardous waste, or associates environmental remediation activities,” according to the latest amended version of AB 1207.

    When Furutani first introduced the bill, it was aimed at small businesses only. However, the description of the bill, which read, “An act to amend Section 14010 of the Corporations Code, relating to small businesses” has been stricken from the bill, and it has been amended to read, “An act to amend Section 337.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.”

    The change in the bill’s intent has caused some outcry among attorneys in the blogosphere. For instance, Sean Sherlock of Snell & Wilmer stated that “the proposed amendment is unnecessary, and would upset nearly 50 years of deliberative legislation and judicial precedent on construction defects liability and the 10–year statute — all apparently motivated by a decision in a single, isolated Superior Court lawsuit that has not yet been reviewed by the court of appeal.” Sherlock is referring to Acosta v. Shell Oil Company, in which the Superior Court agreed to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the developer based in part on the ten year statute of repose. AB 1207 was amended five days after the ruling in Acosta v. Shell Oil Company.

    California AB 1207 has been re-referred to the Judiciary Committee.

    Read the full story…


    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Donna DiMaggio Berger, writing in the Sun Sentinel argues those may be the only current choices in Florida. A recent court case, Lakeview Reserve HOA v. Maronda Homes has caused a swift response from the legislators. Ms. Berger notes that the construction defect bill, HB 1013, “would take away a homeowner’s rights to pursue a developer for defects to the driveways, roads, sidewalks, utilities, drainage areas and other so-called ‘off-site’ improvements.” The alternative? She notes that applying the Maronda decision would “bankrupt developers who don’t build defect-free roads and sidewalks.”

    Read the full story…


    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    December 9, 2011 — Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Colorado Construction Litigation

    In Palu and Beyer v. Toney, 2011 WL 2560249 (Bankr. D. Colo.), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado determined that a Colorado District Court order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff home buyers was binding on the Bankruptcy Court in the defendant contractor’s bankruptcy proceeding based on issue preclusion.

    Pertinent to this column is the subject matter of the summary judgment motion: Colorado’s Seller’s Property Disclosure (Form LC-18-5-04). In the underlying state court action, the plaintiff home buyers filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the defendant contractor represented to them, through the Seller’s Property Disclosure, that there were no present or past conditions involving moisture or water problems, roof problems or leaks, skylight problems, or gutter downspout problems.

    In granting plaintiffs’ motion, the state court determined that the defendant contractor made these representations on her Seller’s Property Disclosure despite witnessing water leaking from the skylight onto the floor and being aware of repairs to the roof, skylight, and interior drywall prior to the sale of the property.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Derek J. Lindenschmidt of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com


    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    March 7, 2011 — March 7, 2011 Construction Defect Journal Staff

    In the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.

    According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.

    The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.

    Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.

    Read Full Story...


    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Hurricane Sandy sent a construction crane dangling from the top of One57, a condo construction project in New York City. In response to the risk, the nearby Parker Meridian and other nearby buildings were evacuated until the crane could be stabilized. Businessweek reports that One57 involves “a tangle of companies,” including the developer, Extell Development and the contractor, Lend Lease Construction. Pinnacle Industries was responsible for providing and operating the crane.

    The insurance claims are yet to be made, but they will likely include the costs of evacuating nearby buildings and to cover any damage to the building itself. David DeLaRue, a vice president in construction practice at Willis Group Holdings said there would be two questions: “Did our insured do anything to cause that loss? Does this policy cover it?”

    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


    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    May 24, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

    Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

    “Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

    In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

    Read the court’s decision


    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Echoing Businessweek, the Las Vegas Sun agrees that the Nevada HOA scandal is the “king of all Vegas real estate scams,” and says that the Nevada legislatures should take action. The Sun notes that the case involves only 12 out of 2,356 HOAs in Southern Nevada.

    To date, 25 people have plead guilty in the case. At the center were an attorney and contractor who allegedly referred work to each other. To enable this, they assembled a wider conspiracy of people who enriched by the process. In the words of the Sun, those involved “upended the concept of a ‘common interest’ community.”

    Read the full story…


    San Diego Construction Defect Claim Settled for $2.3 Million

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Nauman Law firm has settled the lawsuit by the Latitude Owners Association against CS-Crossroads and others, as reported in the Sacramento Bee from a press release by the firm. The owners at Latitude, a condominium community in San Diego, found that hillside crawl spaces were not property waterproofed, leading to rotting plywood, water intrusion, and pipe leaks. There were additional problems with retrofitted windows and repairs of outside decks. The case was filed in San Diego Superior Court, but settled after multiple mediations.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    May 26, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Ten years after it was built, demolition of Seattle’s McGuire Building has begun, as Jeanne Lang Jones reports in the Puget Sound Business Journal. Construction defects had rendered the 25-story apartment building uninhabitable. The major problem was corroded steel cabling. According to the report, “the building’s owners reached an undisclosed settlement last year with St. Louis-based contractor McCarthy Building Companies.”

    Read the full story…


    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    July 6, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Last November, mold problems were discovered at the Siena Condominiums in Montclair, New Jersey, which had been described by their developers as “an enclave of luxury in an urban village setting.” The owners have filed a lawsuit against Pinnacle Companies, Kohl Parnters, and Herod Development, seeking “compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, and for such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”

    According to the article on Baristanet.com, an engineering report commissioned by the condominium association revealed many problems, including improperly installed windows and siding. The developers commissioned two engineering reports themselves and found evidence of water pounding on the roof. Despite these reports and repeated promises, no repairs have been made.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


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

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A magistrate judge has denied a request by KB Home Nevada to extend the time for service an additional ninety days. KB claims that St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company has failed to defend them in a construction defect claim. However, the judge did grant KB an additional twenty days to effectuate service, noting that the request for additional time may be renewed.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Northhampton County, Pennsylvania is suing a contractor who resurfaced a parking garage in 2009. According to the Express-Times, three years later, the surface is cracked and the county is seeking $700,000 for repairs. Additionally, they have withheld $44,000 of the $2.2 million contract because of the problems. John Stoffa, Northampton County Executive, says that the garage is stable, but not up to safety standards.

    Read the full story…


    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    April 25, 2011 — April 25, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    The city of El Paso has recently increased surety bonds required of contractors from $10,000 to $50,000, according to the El Paso Times. Proponents of the increase believe it was necessary to protect homeowners from fly-by-night builders, while opponents argue that the increase will have an adverse effect on an industry in that is already suffering due to the economic slowdown.

    Arguments for and against the increase have been flooding the blogosphere with their views. Christian Dorobantescu on the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog claims that “only about 15% of the city’s 2,500 contractors had been able to secure a higher bond to remain eligible for work after the new requirements were announced.” However, insurance companies have a different take. “From a surety broker standpoint, most contractors will be able qualify for the bond; some will just have to pay higher premium rates to obtain it,” a recent post on the Surety1 blog argues.

    While the increased bond may help homeowners deal with construction defect claims, it is not clear what effect it will have on builders in El Paso.

    Read more from the El Paso Times…

    Read more from the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog…

    Read more from the Surety1 Blog…


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

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly twenty tons of steel fell forty stories at the World Trade Center site on February 16. One person was checked by medical personnel. One person who works in the Financial District said it was “almost like thunder.” Frank Pensabene, one of the ironworkers on the site said that after “loud boom,” “all hell broke loose.” The steel beams and cables fell onto a flatbed truck, which was not occupied at the time.

    Read the full story…