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

    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener

    Water District Denied New Trial in Construction Defect Claim

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

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

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

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

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

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

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

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

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

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

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Ohio Adopts Energy-Efficient Building Code

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

    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    When is a Construction Project truly “Complete”? That depends. (law note)

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

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

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

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

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Know the Minnesota Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims

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

    Colorado Senate Bill 12-181: 2012’s Version of a Prompt Pay Bill

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

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

    Construction Defect Lawsuits? There’s an App for That

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

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

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Tucson Officials to Discuss Construction Defect Claim

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

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Environment Decision May Expand Construction Defect Claims

    School Sues over Botched Pool

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Lower Court “Eminently Reasonable” but Wrong in Construction Defect Case
    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.

    Anaheim California general contracting building code expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting building code compliance expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction defect expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting civil engineer expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting testifying construction expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting consulting general contractorAnaheim California general contracting expert witness structural engineerAnaheim California general contracting expert witness windowsAnaheim California general contracting structural engineering expert witnesses
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment against an insurance company in a construction defect suit. Lagestee-Mulder, Incorporated (LMI) was hired by Crown Centre to construct a multi-story office building in Franfort, Illinois. LMI hired Frontrunner Glass & Metal to supply and install windows and doors. Frontrunner purchased an insurance policy from Consolidated which named LMI as an additional insured. The project experienced water intrusion and other construction defects and Crown sued LMI. Consolidated denied coverage. LMI sued Consolidated and the US District Court granted a summary judgment against Consolidated.

    The appeals court reviewed the grounds for summary judgment and determined that under Illinois law, Consolidated had a duty to defend. The court cited an earlier opinion that “if the underlying compliant alleges facts within or potentially within policy coverage, an insurer is obligated to defend its insured even if the allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    After a period of growth, the construction industry lost 20,000 jobs in November, based on the federal jobs data. Damon Scott of New Mexico Business Weekly suggests that contractors may have laid off employees in anticipation of the “fiscal cliff.” Ken Simpson, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders said in a press release that “it is discouraging that construction employment is still struggling after three years of expansion in the overall economy.”

    Read the full story…


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

    July 19, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Judge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.

    Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.

    When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.

    The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that Nevada’s construction defect and minimum wage laws are hampering job growth. The organization conducted a survey, and although only about two percent of the members responded, they passed the opinions of the group on to Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has said, according to the report by Fox News Reno, that he wants the state to be more business friendly. He supports reforms to Nevada’s construction defect laws, saying that he’d “like to see some reform” on the issue of mandatory attorney’s fees.

    Randi Thompson, the spokesperson for the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said that members of her organization would like to see current Nevada construction defect law revoked. She described current law as “driven towards lawyers and not toward protecting consumers.”

    Read the full story…


    New Households Moving to Apartments

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The New York Times reports that multifamily construction?Äîapartment buildings?Äîis leading the recovery in construction. Construction of single-family homes is only a third of the way up from its fall from its earlier heights, while multifamily construction has recovered two-thirds of its peak. Young adults are moving out of their parents’ homes, but instead of buying homes, they’re renting apartments.

    Houston is adding thousands of new units, leading to a fear of overbuilding. Rents have been rising, but as the supply of apartment units rises, higher rents may be unsustainable. However, during the recession, young adults did not move out of their parents’ homes, leading to about two million doubled-up households. David Crowe, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders, noted that “all of the net addition to households since 2004 has been in rentals.”

    Read the full story…


    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Two New Jersey contractors have pleaded guilty to charges that they made false representations for a government contract in a case related to kickbacks for construction work done in two school districts. New Jersey is recommending that the two men, Martin Starr and Stephen Gallagher, will each pay $50,000 in penalties, serve up to a year in jail, and be unable to accept public contracts for five years.

    Last month, another individual in the case, Kenneth Disko, who had been the engineer for the school district, pleaded guilty on a similar charge. In addition to a $50,000 penalty, he will be serving three to five years in prison. A fourth conspirator, Robert Berman, the former business administrator for one of the school districts, has to pay a $13,000 fine and cooperate with the investigation. He is also barred from public employment in New Jersey and has been terminated from his position.

    Starr admitted to preparing fictitious quotes which appeared to be from other contractors in order that his firm would seem to be the lowest bidder. Gallagher helped in preparing the fictitious bids and also provided cash kickbacks to Disko.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    June 29, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Associated General Contractors of America reported Tuesday, June 28 that construction employment increased in 120 of the 337 metropolitan areas surveyed between May 2010 and May 2011.

    ‘While construction employment has stopped plunging, any sign of a recovery remains spotty at best,” said Ken Simonson, the association’s chief economist. ‘The close to even split between areas adding and losing jobs is a reminder that for every market doing well, there is another market that is still hurting.”

    The largest number of jobs created was in the Dallas, Texas region, with 5,600 new jobs, a five percent increase. The northern Massachusetts/southern New Hampshire region near Haverhill saw the greatest percentage increase, although that twenty-two percent increase represents only 800 new jobs. The Chicago, Illiinois area added 4,600 jobs, a four percent increase.

    Other regions were not so lucky. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw a loss of 7,400 jobs, an eight percent loss. Las Vegas also lost 7,400 jobs, which there represented a sixteen percent decline. The New York City area lost 6,700 jobs, a six percent reduction. The Riverside, California area lost 5,300 jobs, a nine percent loss.

    Stephen E. Sandherr, the association’s chief executive officer, blamed a combination of regulation and budget squeezes. "Some in Washington never met a regulation they didn’t like and others never found a penny they didn’t want to pinch. Together that makes for a bad way to boost employment and a great way to stifle the private sector and neglect critical economic infrastructure.”

    Read the full story…


    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A group of Des Moines home builders is building two homes for low-income families. The homes are being constructed to meet the National Association of Home Builders’ emerald standard for green construction. According to the article in the Des Moines Register, the homes will be finished by the end of August.

    Read the full story…


    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Southgate Gardens Condominium had buildings damaged by Hurricane Wilma in 2005. See Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basedeo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11864 (11th Cir. June 12, 2012). First State Development Corporation was hired by Southgate to do repairs.

    On November 1, 2005, First State completed tarping on the buildings. Thereafter, on November 11, 2005, First State contracted with Southgate to remove and replace the roofs of the Southgate Buildings.

    The tarps placed by First State were inadequate and allowed water to enter the unit of Wayne Basdeo and cause damage. Further, when it attached the tarps, First State caused holes to be made in the roofs of buildings, leading to additional damage. First State also left open the mansards (a type of roof which has two slopes on all all sides, but with the lower slope steeper that the upper one). Finally, the peeled-back condition of the roofing allowed rain to enter.

    Basdeo filed a claim with Mid-Continent.

    Read the full story…

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


    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The ongoing case over claims that a group fixed homeowner board elections in order to supply the conspirators with a stream of construction defect cases and repairs has lead to fourteen guilty pleas. The judge recently issued charges against fifteen of the accused; one defendant did not join in the group as he was recovering from pneumonia. The prosecutors have asked the judge to delay sentencing, as the investigation is continuing. Prosecutors note that another dozen people may be indicted.

    Along with an earlier group who plead guilty, this brings the total number of guilty pleas in the case to twenty-five. All have promised to cooperate with authorities.

    The case has also involved four deaths, although authorities have not suspected foul play in the deaths. Nancy Quon, one of the four, was the construction defect attorney suspected to be at the center of the conspiracy.

    Read the full story…


    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    July 12, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    If an earthquake hit Las Vegas, the Harmon Tower would not withstand it. A report from Weidlinger Associates told MGM Resorts that “in a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower.” The inspection came at the request of county officials, according to the article in Forbes.

    According to Ronald Lynn, directory of the building division in the county’s development services division, “these deficiencies, in their current state, make the building uninhabitable.” The county is concerned about risks to adjacent buildings.

    MGM Resorts is currently in litigation, separate from the stability issues, with Perini Corp., the builders of Harmon Tower.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Some insurers in Hawaii have made it clear that they will be covering construction defects, despite a court ruling concluding that defects are not occurrences, under Hawaii law. The case, heard by Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals found that “breach-of-contract claims based on allegations of shoddy performance are not covered under CGL policies and that tort-based claims derivative of such breach of contract claims also are not covered.”

    Writing in Business Insider, Michael Bradford notes that the case, Group Builders Inc. and Tradewind Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Admiral Insurance Co., involved improperly installed insulation at the Hilton Hawaiian Village’s Kalia Tower. Hilton was forced to close 21 floors due to extensive mold in guest rooms. Although the court did recognize this property damage, they did not feel it triggered insurance coverage, noting that if disputes over the quality of work were covered, CGL policies would become professional liability policies or performance bonds.

    One critic of the decision, Warren C. Perkins, the risk manager at Boh Bros. Construction of New Orleans, noted that under the decision, “it doesn’t matter what the policy says and there is no need to investigate the policy wording.”

    Read the full story…


    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    June 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Negotiations for the Nevada state budget have stalled over proposals to amend the state’s construction defect laws. Assembly Republicans had offered changes to the law to make it friendlier to contractors; however, after a state Supreme Court ruling that the state could not move a local government entity’s funds into state coffers, pressure has increased on the governor to lift the expiration dates of taxes approved in 2009.

    The Reno Gazette-Journal quotes John Madole, a construction industry lobbyist, “We agree with them that you have to address the issue of the attorney fees, and for all practical purposes, they are automatically awarded when anybody brings any kind of suit.”

    Speaker of the Assembly, John Oceguera, a Democrat, has proposed a bill that “makes it absolutely crystal clear that the only time you get attorney's fees is if you're the prevailing party.”

    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…


    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    July 20, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

    The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

    Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

    After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

    The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

    Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

    The court concluded:

    Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    June 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

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

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

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

    Read the full story…

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


    Insurer Settles on Construction Defect Claim

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Law360 reports that Arch Specialty Insurance Company has settled over claims that it wrongly denied coverage in a construction defect claim. The court dismissed Arch with prejudice. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed and the attorneys made not comment to Law360.

    Read the full story…


    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…