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

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

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

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

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

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Architect Not Liable for Balcony’s Collapse

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

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

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

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    Limitations of Liability in Subcontractors’ Contracts May Not Be Enforceable in Colorado to Limit Claims by Construction Professionals.

    West Coast Casualty Promises Exciting Line Up at the Nineteenth Annual Conference

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

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

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

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

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

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

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

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

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

    Discovery Ordered in Nevada Construction Defect Lawsuit

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    No-Show Contractor Can’t Hide from Construction Defect Claim

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Environment Decision May Expand Construction Defect Claims

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

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

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

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

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

    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

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

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

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

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

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

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

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

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

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

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

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

    Know the Minnesota Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims
    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 delay claim expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting consulting engineersAnaheim California general contracting building code expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting structural engineering expert witnessesAnaheim California general contracting expert witness windowsAnaheim California general contracting eifs expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting consulting architect expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting hospital construction expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting consulting general contractor
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.

    The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.

    Read the full story…


    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 — CJD Staff

    Built on a program for safer school buildings, schools in Neenan County, Colorado have been shown to have mild-to-moderate structural problems, rendering some of them unsafe. The Denver Post reports that a third-party review of schools built by the Neenan Company has shown structural issues in all fifteen school buildings.

    One school, Meeker Elementary, has been closed as it could collapse under high winds or during an earthquake. Sargent Junior-Senior High School is in use, but there are plans to evacuate the buildings if winds exceed 25 mile per hour. Two schools have roofs that are unable to bear expected loads of snow during the winter.

    The Neenan Company says that the school buildings are not up to their standards and is working with the school districts to repair the buildings. Repairs are expected to be complete by August.

    Read the full story…


    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Property Casualty 360 reports that the owner of a construction company in California’s Bay Area has been arraigned in San Francisco Superior Court. The fifty-seven felony counts include charges of payroll theft and insurance fraud.

    San Francisco District Attorney, George Gascon is quoted as saying that Doherty’s actions “hurts the honest businesses that were unable to successfully compete for these projects which the defendant was able to underbid and win as a result of this scheme.”

    Frances Ann Doherty, owner of Doherty Painting & Construction has been charged with submitting false documentation as to what wages she paid her workers. It is alleged that over three years she pocketed $600,000. Additionally, she is charged with underpaying her insurer by more than $100,000 by submitting to them the fake payroll information.

    Read the full story…


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

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    If a condominium owner suffers damage caused by a leak from another unit, may it sue the insurer for the Association of Apartment Owner (AOAO) for coverage? The federal district court for Hawaii said "no" in a decision by Judge Mollway. See Peters v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148734 (D. Haw. December 27, 2011).

    Two cases were consolidated. In each case, Plaintiffs owned condominium units at the Watercrest Resort on Molokai. Water leaking from another unit damaged Plaintiffs’ units.

    Watercrest Resort was insured by Lexington pursuant to a policy maintained by the AOAO. Plaintiffs filed claims with Lexington. Lexington hired an adjustor.

    Unhappy with the adjustment of their claims, Plaintiffs sued Lexington and the adjustor.

    Read the full story…

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


    In Re Golba: The Knaubs v. Golba and Rollison, Debtors

    June 19, 2012 — Brady Iandiorio

    Now comes another cautionary tale for builders and developers, especially those using single purpose business entities to handle individual construction projects. The United States Bankruptcy Court in Denver, Colorado, through the Honorable Michael Romero, provided an order regarding plaintiffs’ problems with a home they purchased from an entity controlled or represented by defendants. Plaintiffs, Kelvin and Holly Knaub (the “Knaubs”) filed adversary proceedings against debtor Robert Golba in his bankruptcy proceeding and against debtor Greg Rollison in his separate bankruptcy proceeding. The adversary proceedings were partially consolidated to proceed in parallel but not substantively.

    The Knaubs purchased a home from Gemm Homes (“Gemm”) in May 2003. Problems stemming from the foundation caused the Knaubs to seek an explanation and ultimately a solution from Gemm and then from Avalon Homes (“Avalon”), which the Knaubs claim is just a continuation of Gemm. Through their complaint, the Knaubs seek relief for 1) damages caused by fraudulent representations and false pretenses under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), based on Golba’s misrepresentation that Gemm and Rollison were not involved in Avalon; 2) damages caused by actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A), based on Golba’s and Rollison’s alleged conspiracy fraudulently to convey the assets of Gemm to the Avalon entities; and 3) damages caused by breach of fiduciary duty under § 523(a)(4), alleging Gemm was an insolvent company which owed a fiduciary duty to its creditors, and alleging Golba participated in transferring Gemm’s assets to Avalon for no consideration. In the Golba action, the third claim for relief was dismissed.

    The facts of the case are important and somewhat convoluted. In an effort to make the cases clear, the evidence, allegations, and facts will be laid out in detail below. The Knaubs’ house was purchased from Gemm and soon after both Gemm and Rollison had an engineering company perform an analysis which discovered the foundation was not laid on stable ground.

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    There was a significant increase in the number of open construction jobs during October, according to a report for the National Association of Home Builders. Working from preliminary data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NAHB said that the number of open positions reached “levels and rates last seen in 2007.” As the data is still preliminary, the NAHB noted that the conclusions should be taken with caution.

    While there was a spike in job openings, the hiring of people to fill these positions hasn’t caught up with it, and there was a small decline in hires. But to return to the good news, there was also a drop in layoffs in that same period.

    Through October, about 8,000 people have been hired in the construction sector. The NAHB notes that this does not correspond with the recent increases with home construction. They suggest that “it may be the case that startups in the home building and remodeling sectors are being missed by the establishment survey.” Another possibility they raise is that already-employed construction workers are simply working more hours.

    Read the full story…


    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

    The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

    Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

    Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

    However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    August 2, 2012 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Recently, in the Arapahoe District Court, the Honorable Michael Spear, issued an order holding that builders do not owe a non-delegable duty to homeowners. In Marx and Corken v. Alpert Custom Homes, Inc., et al., Judge Spear’s order came in response to plaintiffs’ motion for determination of question of law seeking a finding that the defendants owed a non-delegable duty to the plaintiffs and thus, to strike defendants’ designation of nonparties at fault. After being fully briefed, Judge Spear, found that such a non-delegable duty does not exist.

    The case arises from the construction of a single-family residence in Aurora, Colorado. Through the construction and interaction with Alpert Custom Homes, Inc. and Scott and Sally Alpert, the defendants, Paul Marx and Kay Corken, the plaintiffs claimed they suffered various damages and losses, and brought claims for breach of contract-warranty, breach of contract, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, breaches of the implied covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, willful breach of contract, and quantum meruit. During litigation, the defendants filed a designation of nonparties at fault, which named several parties which were at fault for the alleged construction defects at issue in the case. The pertinent nonparties named were subcontractors of defendant Alpert Custom Homes, Inc. during the construction of the residence.

    Read the full story…

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


    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The National Association of Home Builders reports that spending on private homes was up three percent in October 2012, bringing it to a four-year high. This was part of a trend in which fourteen of the last fifteen months have seen increases in spending on residential construction. Likewise, multifamily residences have seen thirteen months of increased spending, putting it 82% higher than its low, two years ago. ¬?In addition to new homes, remodeling is also up, reaching its highest point in five years.

    Read the full story…


    Statute of Repose Dependant on When Subcontractors Finished

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Scott C. Sandberg of Snell and Wilmer writes a post on the JDSupra site about the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in Shaw Construction v. United Builder Services. Sanberg notes that when the general contractor was sued by an HOA, the contractor turned around and sued its subcontractors. The contractor made three claims. They claimed that “improvement” referred to the whole project, that “substantial completion” was reached when the architect certified completion, and that the statute of repose was tolled by the HOA’s service of a Construction Defect Action Reform Act notice.

    The subcontractors claimed that “improvement” only referred to their specific work, which reached “substantial completion” when they finished, despite work to be done by other later, and the HOA’s notice to the contractor did not affect the subcontractors. The Colorado court agreed with the subcontractors.

    Sandberg notes that some of the contractor’s were not addressed by the court, noting that “the court did not decide whether an improvement triggering the statute of repose can be determined on a trade-by-trade basis,” and that “the court did not decide whether substantial completion occurs when a certificate of occupancy is issued or when the architect certifies completion.”

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Clay Olson looks back to a 1991 Carolina case, Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company. The court concluded in that case that “a plaintiff in South Carolina may recover only if his/her negligence does not exceed that of the defendant’s and amount of plaintiff’s recovery shall be reduced in proportion to amount of his or her negligence; if there is more than one defendant, plaintiff’s negligence shall be compared to combined negligence of all defendants.” In 2005, he reports, as part of tort reform in South Carolina, the legislature further addressed this.

    He then suggests a possible outcome of this is that negligent contractors may be able to shift some of the blame (and cost of the settlement) to other defendants who may not be to blame. He offers a scenario in which a contractor is sued for construction defects and a jury has to allocate responsibility for indivisible damage. “A jury need only find the two subcontractors to have each contributed 15% of the indivisible damage.” He adds in another 15% for claims against the architect. Minor blame is given to the manufacturers, and suddenly the negligent contractor is paying less than 50% of the total settlement.

    He notes that the previous system in place also had its problems, but notes that this one may not be “fair and equitable.”

    Read the full story…


    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    May 26, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million.

    Read the full story…


    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    July 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Perception Construction Management v. Bell. The Bells hired PCM to build a log home, agreeing to play monthly invoices in full within ten days. The Bells paid the first four invoices in full, part of the fifth, and ceased payment after that. Beofre seventh invoice, the Bells terminated the contract and hired a new contractor. PCM filed a claim of lien and ceased work.

    The Bells responded that PCM was in breach of contract and had failed to fulfill the contract in a workmanlike manner. They claimed construction defects and in the lien suit, sought to include testimony from an architect and a plumber reviewing PCM’s work. The court only allowed the architect to testify as to whether the amount of the lien was reasonable. No testimony was permitted from the plumber.

    The Idaho Supreme Court concluded that the claims of construction defects were important to case and remanded it to the lower court for a new trial taking into evidence that Bell’s contention that PCM’s work was defective.

    Read the court’s decision


    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Home prices in October were up more than six percent compared with prices in October 2011. The LA Times noted that some of the strongest gains were in California and Arizona. The Phoenix metropolitan area saw a 24.5% rise in home prices. In California, Riverside and Los Angeles were just above the national average, at 7.3% and 6.4%, contributing to the state’s overall nine percent increase.

    The news wasn’t good throughout the entire country, as five states did not see any price increases. Mark Fleming, the chief economist at CoreLogic, a research firm in Irvine, California said that “the housing recovery that started earlier in 2012 continues to gain momentum.

    Read the full story…


    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    April 25, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Cousel

    Contractual fairness ? it is part of my mantra. If you read the blog, you probably know that I preach brevity, balance and clarity in contracting. The State of Washington did well to finally eliminate something that has angered me for quite some time ? unfair indemnification.

    One of my favorite construction contract revisions is mutual indemnification. Many “up the chain” contractors and owners are going to stick you with a unilateral indemnification clause that protects them for just about everything, including their own fumbling of a project. Adding mutual indemnification provides some balance, and keeps parties reliant upon each other for success on the job site.

    Read the full story…

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