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

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

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

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

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

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

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Webinar on Insurance Disputes in Construction Defects

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

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

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

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

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

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

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

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

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    Changes To Indemnification Statute Are Here! Say Hello To Defense Duties

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

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

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Restitution Unlikely in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

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

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Environment Decision May Expand Construction Defect Claims

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

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

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

    The Complete and Accepted Work Doctrine and Construction Defects

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

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

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

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

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

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

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

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

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

    Amerisure Case to be Heard by Texas Supreme Court

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate
    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 civil engineering expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting forensic architectAnaheim California general contracting construction expertsAnaheim California general contracting construction expert witness public projectsAnaheim California general contracting expert witness commercial buildingsAnaheim California general contracting OSHA expert witness constructionAnaheim California general contracting construction project management expert witnessesAnaheim California general contracting stucco expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The South Carolina Supreme Court has left the legislature’s new, expanded definition of “occurrence” in place, declining to declare it unconstitutional. South Carolina included faulty workmanship as an occurrence in response to a Supreme Court decision, which the court later reversed. One of the parties in that earlier decision, Harleysville Insurance, challenged the new law, claiming that the legislature didn’t have the power to pass a law to overturn a court ruling. The court did not concur.

    However, the court did determine that the law was not retroactive and covered only claims filed after the law became effective in May 2011. The Chief Justice of South Carolina noted that “insurance coverage for construction liability lacks clarity, particularly with respect to whether construction defects constitute ‘occurrences’ under construction general insurance policies.”

    Read the full story…


    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.

    Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.

    The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”

    Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”

    The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”

    Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”

    The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.

    Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.

    Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”

    The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…


    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    June 14, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Minnesota has elected to implement the new OSHA rules concerning fall prevention in residential construction on June 20, well before OSHA’s September 15 deadline. Brian Johnson, reporting in Finance and Commerce, quotes Pam Perri, the executive vice president of the Builders Association of Minnesota, “this is the worst time to implement a new rule.” Ms. Perri notes “In Minnesota, education time for the residential construction industry is between November and March 1, not in the middle of the construction season.”

    Mike Swanson of Rottlund Homes estimated that the new regulations would add between $200 to $500 to the cost of a house and that he felt the current safety regulations were adequate. OSHA officials are quoted that there continues “to be a high number of fall-related deaths in construction.”

    Read the fully story…


    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    August 11, 2011 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    A general contractor was entitled to a defense as an additional insured when the underlying complaint did not allege it was solely negligent. A-1 Roofing Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 656 (Ill. Ct. App. June 24, 2011).

    A-1 was the general contractor for a roof resurfacing job at a high school. Jack Frost Iron Works Inc. (“Frost”) was one of A-1’s subcontractors. Frost had a CGL policy with Navigators Insurance Company under which A-1 was an additional insured.

    An employee of Frost’s subcontractor Midwest Sheet Metal Inc. was killed at the job site when a boom-lift he was operating flipped over. The boom-lift had been leased by another Frost subcontractor, Bakes Steel Erectors, Inc. (BSE). The deceased's estate filed suit against A-1, BSE and two other defendants.

    Read the full story…

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


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

    April 27, 2011 — April 27, 2011, by CDCoverage.com

    In Evanston Ins. Co. v. D&L Masonry of Lubbock, Inc., No. 07-10-00358-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 18, 2011), insured masonry subcontractor D&L sued its CGL insurer Evanston to recover costs incurred by D&L for the replacement of window frames damaged by D&L while performing masonry work adjacent to the window frames. The trial court granted summary judgment for D&L.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    March 1, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.

    After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and cause it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.

    The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

    Read the full story…

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


    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Accusations are coming from both sides over construction defects at a Las Vegas tower, only this time, it’s not the Harmon Towers, it’s Hilton Grand Vacations, which is part of the Planet Hollywood Resort. The project was originally dubbed PH Towers Westgate, and it was developed by Westgate Resorts, which is suing the contractor, Tutor-Saliba for $10 million over late completion and construction defects.

    Among the defects Westgate is claiming are cracked floor tiles in the valet lobby and cracks and delamination of the pool deck. Tutor-Saliba argues that the failure of the valet lobby floor is due to Westgate specifying only 1/16th inch-wide grouting, instead of the specified ¬º inch, and Westgate’s refusal to allow expansion joints on the pool deck has lead to problems there. Westgate’s attorney, Robert Schumacher, attributes the problems to “shoddy construction practices.”

    According to the article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, plans were only 60 percent complete when construction began, leading to “thousands of change orders.” Despite not meeting an August completion deadline, Tutor-Saliba is claiming it is owed a $1.5 million bonus nevertheless.

    Read the full story…


    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    McGrawHill Construction reports that 17 percent of new homes and remodels in 2011 were done with green building practices. Their report estimates that by 2016, this will rise to 29 to 38 percent of the market for home construction and remodeling.

    Consumers see the green buildings as more desirable, particularly where they are more energy efficient. Two thirds of builders noted their customers were interested in features that would lower the energy use of their homes. Consumers also feel that green building materials are more durable and see green homes as higher quality.

    Read the full story…


    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.

    Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.

    On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    David Paterson, who succeeded Eliot Spitzer as Governor of New York, has started a new venture after leaving the Governor’s office in construction integrity monitoring. WNYC reports that Paterson will be the majority owner of Icon Compliance Services, LLC, which will both conduct investigations and work with law enforcement officials. Paterson says that in government projects “often concessions are made for political reasons in the public sector and then you never really get a product that you paid for.”

    Paterson will be working with a former vice president of Bovis Construction, Brian Aryai, who is also a former U.S. Treasury Agent. Aryai said that “it is astounding that some of the fraud that has come to the surface in the recent past,” and describes it as “almost laughable they were not detected.” Aryai tipped federal prosecutors that Bovis had been over billing on projects for at least a decade.

    Read the full story…


    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    May 10, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    I love writing this column, because I think it’s refreshing for contractors to hear that they don’t always need an attorney. Today’s post is the “Un-Save a Legal Fee” because I want to point out a specific illustration of when you definitely need your attorney. Using a construction contract template can be fine, but you always need to consider its application to each project ? or it could bite you in the rear.

    Seattle attorney Paul Cressman published a prime depiction of bad contract management, last week. A Florida appellate court struck down a general contractor’s “pay if paid” clause when it became ambiguous because of some incorporated language from its prime contract. Specifically, a clause in the prime contract required the general contractor to pay all subcontractors before receiving payment from the owner, while the general contractor’s “pay if paid” clause required its subcontractors to wait for payment until it arrived from the owner.

    Read the full story…


    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

    Read the full story…


    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Hernando County, just north of Tampa on Florida’s west coast, has suspended impact fees for a year, hoping to spur development. Hernando Today reports that the move drew applause from the audience at the county commissioners meeting. Many of those in attendance were builders or members of the Greater Hernando Chamber of Commerce.

    Not all were convinced. Frankie Burnett, the mayor of Brooksville, told the commissioners that his city council were not convinced that this would spur development. “Development should pay its fair share, even in slow economic times.” Burnett’s letter to the board warned that “if lowering impact fees succeeded in stimulating more residential overbuilding, it would only further depress the current real estate market.”

    Read the full story…


    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    October 31, 2010 — Original article by Michael Bradford in Business Insurance

    ATLANTA—Negligent construction that results in damage to surrounding property constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled.

    In a 6-1 opinion Monday in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Hathaway Development Co. Inc., the Georgia high court upheld a lower court ruling that the general contractor’s claim for damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty plumbing work was covered.

    The ruling on construction defects is the latest in number of such cases across the United States

    Read Full Story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bradford of Business Insurance.


    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    December 20, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court, asking whether property damage can constitute an "occurrence" under a CGL policy where its effects are not felt on "other property." HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co. v. Morrison Homes, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. Ct. LEXIS 23813 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2012).

    The general contractor, Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., was covered by a CGL policy issued by Gerling.  The policy excluded "expected or intended injury," contractual liability," and business risk exclusions. Morrison was sued by homeowners in a class action suit. Morrison had allegedly omitted four inches of gravel required beneath the base of the concrete foundations by the Uniform Building Code. Thereafter, the houses sustained water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckling flooring.

    Gerling defended, but sued Morrison for a declaratory judgment.

    Read the full story…

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


    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Welders working on Pier 29 in San Francisco were preparing the building for the America’s Cup sailing race. Instead, they accidentally caused $2.4 million in damages. Mindy Talmadge, a fire department spokesperson, attributed the fire to crews welding a latter to a wall. According to Talmadge, a spark entered a crack in the concrete wall and “the wood on the building underneath was really dry.” It took firefighters more than two hours to extinguish the blaze.

    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…


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

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…