BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort Anaheim California mid-rise construction Anaheim California tract home Anaheim California production housing Anaheim California housing Anaheim California multi family housing Anaheim California high-rise construction Anaheim California concrete tilt-up Anaheim California parking structure Anaheim California industrial building Anaheim California townhome construction Anaheim California structural steel construction Anaheim California Medical building Anaheim California condominium Anaheim California hospital construction Anaheim California condominiums Anaheim California office building Anaheim California landscaping construction Anaheim California retail construction Anaheim California low-income housing Anaheim California custom homes Anaheim California custom home Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

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

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

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

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

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

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

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

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

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

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Destruction of Construction Defect Evidence Leads to Sanctions against Plaintiff

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

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

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

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

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

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

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

    Construction Defects: 2010 in Review

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

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Ohio Adopts Energy-Efficient Building Code

    Product Exclusion: The Big Reason Behind The Delay of LEED 2012

    Plaintiff Not Entitled to Further Damages over Defective Decking

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    Construction Defects Leave Animal Shelter Unusable

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

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

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

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

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

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

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

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Florida trigger

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

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker
    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 expert witness roofingAnaheim California general contracting slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting window expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting expert witness structural engineerAnaheim California general contracting building code compliance expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting architectural engineering expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction project management expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting civil engineering expert witness
    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…


    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…


    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Buildings born in ambitious development plans that were never brought to completion form a grim reminder of the building bust in Miami, according to an article in the Miami Herald. One project started in 2007 as a residential project, later there were hopes to develop it as a hotel. These plans are ten months old with no work done.

    Another project was projected as a 30-story office and commercial tower. Four were built before the project was abandoned. The article describes the site as “squalid.” Another project completed the planned 17 stories, but no work has been done beyond constructing the shell. Once planned as luxury condos, the owner owes more than $30,000 in property taxes.

    Each of the three sites profiled in the Miami Herald have become dumping grounds for trash. The building skeletons have also become damaged by the elements. Some abandoned projects have been taken over by homeless people. Businesses near the abandoned properties have been hurt. The buildings also represent failed obligations to subcontractors who have put liens on the properties for work they performed but were never paid for.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A Bronx construction worker died when the pillars gave way in the basement where he was working. The two-story commercial building collapsed, burying Mr. Kebbeh under about six feet of rubble. The New York Times reports that firefighters dug him out with their bare hands. Mr. Kebbeh was taken to Jacobi Medical Center where he died. Two other construction workers escaped unharmed.

    Read the full story…


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

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The case Trinity Homes LLC and Beazer Homes Investments LLC has reached the summary judgment stage. The remaining plaintiffs are Trinity Homes LLC (Trinity) and Beazer Homes Investments LLC (Beazer), and the only defendant remaining is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty). “Ohio Casualty has filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #409) on all claims against it, and Trinity and Beazer have filed a cross-motion seeking partial summary judgment (Dkt. #431) in their favor.” Ohio Casualty’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part, and Beazer’s motion was granted in part and denied in part.

    The court’s ruling presented a bit of background on the companies involved in the litigation: “Trinity is an Indiana limited liability company with its principal place of business in Indiana and is one of several construction related companies owned by Beazer, which is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of Delaware having its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Beazer’s predecessor, Beazer Homes Investment Corporation, acquired the stock of Crossman Communities, Inc. in 2002. Crossman and its subsidiary owned all interests in Trinity. Beazer and Trinity are in the business of residential real estate development and construction.”

    Furthermore, “Ohio Casualty’s home office is in Ohio, where it is incorporated. It sells insurance policies to commercial entities such as Plaintiffs. It purchased a book of business from Great American Insurance Company, a subsidiary of which had sold commercial general liability policies (‘CGL’) and umbrella liability policies to Trinity, covering the period of time between May 1, 1994 through May 1, 1999. For ease of reference, we will refer to these policies as the Ohio Casualty policies. Trinity sold and acted as a general contractor for the construction of new homes in Central Indiana throughout the period of time in which the Ohio Casualty policies were in place.”

    The court disagreed with almost every argument put forth by Ohio Casualty. However, they did concede “that Ohio Casualty is obligated to indemnify Trinity only for damages arising during its policy periods for pro rata liability as opposed to several and indivisible, by reason of its having limited its indemnity obligation to ‘those sums’ that Trinity becomes liable to pay for property damage which ‘occurs during the policy period.’”

    Finally, the court ruled that “Ohio Casualty Company’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. #409) is GRANTED IN PART, that is, to the extent that Beazer is not an insured under the Ohio Casualty insurance policies, but the motion is DENIED in all other respects.”

    The court further ruled that “Trinity and Beazer’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #431) is GRANTED IN PART, that is: (1) Trinity is an insured under the Ohio Casualty CGL and umbrella policies in effect for the time period from May 1, 1994 to May 1, 1999; (2) the claims at issue in the Underlying Lawsuits are "property damage" claims resulting from an "occurrence" and are therefore within the policy coverage provided under the Ohio Casualty Policy; and (3) none of the exclusions in the Ohio Casualty Policy bars coverage. Trinity and Beazer’s Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Moreover, material questions of fact remain with respect to whether payments made to the 54 homeowners, who were part of the putative class in the underlying Colon class action but were not included in the certified settlement class, were voluntary payments and as such do not qualify for indemnification. Material questions of fact also preclude a summary ruling on the issue of whether Ohio Casualty is estopped from raising their voluntary nature as a defense to indemnity.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.

    Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”

    After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.

    During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”

    Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”

    Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”

    Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”

    Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Clay County, Kansas is offering rebates on building permits for green homes. According to the Kansas City Star, building permits in the county are typically $2,500. The county will rebate anything from half to all of the permit fee, depending on how well the builder meets green standards. The county will monitor and inspect the process to make certain that builders adhere to their promises for green construction. The county hopes this will encourage green building by offsetting the cost.

    Read the full story…


    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”

    Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

    Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”

    On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…


    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    May 20, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    PR Newswire reports that the Carolinas Associated General Contractors (CAGC) have successfully persuaded the South Carolina legislature to pass a bill restoring commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. Governor Nikki Hartley signed the legislation on May 17.

    A South Carolina Supreme Court decision given on January 7, 2011, had ended commercial general liability coverage in the state. Senate Bill 431 addressed this decision, restoring the ability of home builders to obtain CGL coverage.

    PR Newswire quotes South Carolina homebuilder, Allen Amsler: “We have seen a lot of legislation with substantial impact to our business over the years. However, I would place this in the same level of importance with the original tort reform legislation. The effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling could have been catastrophic to our industry in South Carolina had it not been for this bill. Thanks to all those in the House, Senate and the Governor’s office who assisted us.”

    Read the full story…


    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    June 6, 2011 — Douglas Reiser in the Builders Counsel Blog

    Apparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?

    Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.

    If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.

    But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.

    Read the full story…

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


    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    February 10, 2012 — Douglas Rieser, Builders Counsel

    Stonewood v. Infinity Homes is a simple construction dispute over a matter of about $9,000.00. But sometimes these tiny little disputes turn into expensive legal battles over mere procedural quivering. In Stonewood, a small subcontractor won a big victory yesterday when the Divison 1 Court of Appeals upheld its judgment against a lien release bond posted by an owner.

    Infinity Homes contracted with Stonewood Design to lay tile in one of its customer’s homes. Stonewood did the work, but Infinity withheld roughly $9,000.00 of the contract sums for what it alleged were trade damages left on the tile. The two parties were unable to come to an agreement over payment and Stonewood proceeded with a lien under RCW 60.04. It then filed an action to enforce the lien against the homeowner, Infinity and its bonding company.

    Read the full story…

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


    Condo Owners Worried Despite Settlement

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    KB Homes may have settled a construction defect claim with Willowbrook Condominium Association, but some of the owners are still concerned about the repair process. The Sarasota, Florida Herald Tribune reports that one homeowner’s living room “ends with a white tarp.” He told the paper, “We feel like we’re not even owners of our own home.” A neighbor wondered “what happens when people get displaced while their homes are gutted?”

    As part of the agreement, the condominium association will be selecting a contractor to repair the problems, while the cost will be paid by KB Homes. Nevertheless, at least one owner fears for their ability to resell his home, noting that even after repairs have been made, “do you think someone’s going to come in here and buy?”

    Read the full story…


    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    August 16, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The court determined the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous and found coverage for the home owners in Platek v. Town of Hamburg, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. App. Div. July 6, 2012).

    The burst of a water main caused water damage to the insureds' basement. Allstate disclaimed coverage under exclusion 4 for losses caused by "[w]ater . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source . . . [,] includ[ing] water . . . which exerts pressure on or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residence premises."

    Another policy provision covered "sudden and accidental direct physical loss caused by fire, explosion or theft resulting from item []. . . 4 . . . ." Plaintiffs argued that this exception applied because their claimed loss was caused by an "explosion" of the water main.

    Read the full story…

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


    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…


    School Sues over Botched Pool

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Daily American reports that the Somerset Area School District has alleged that the contractor who repaired and renovated the district’s swimming pool “botched” the job. Now the school has filed a civil case in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. The contractor, Wilson Construction Co. would prefer the matter to be settled in binding arbitration.

    The school district alleges that the surface installed by Wilson Construction cracked and bubbled due to improper installation. The manufacturer of the waterproofing system, Dryvit Systems, tested the installation and concluded it was an installation failure instead of a product defect. Dryvit told the district that the exterior walls would have be removed.

    The school district paid Wilson Construction $591,081 for their work. In their lawsuit, they are seeking $594,596 to cover the cost of draining the pool and repairing it.

    Read the full story…


    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Don’t expect a fast resolution to the Harmon Tower case in Las Vegas. The latest schedule sets trial for the construction defect claims in January 2014. Previously, these claims were going to be heard during the trial set to start in June 2013. Now the June trial will be over payment issues only.

    Don’t expect the building to come down soon either. While CityCenter claims the building could come down in an earthquake, Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez had determined that as the structural testing was not random; its results cannot be extrapolated through the entire structure. As a result, CityCenter has elected to do more testing, holding off on demolishing the building. They are appealing Gonzalez’s order to the Nevada Supreme Court.

    Read the full story…


    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Minnesota has replaced its Independent Contractor Exemption Certificate program with the Contractor Registration Pilot Project, according to an article in the Martindale-Hubble Legal Library by Michael B. Lapicola. Mr. Lapicola notes that “it will be a violation of the law to contract with or perform construction services for another person without first being registered with the Pilot Project, or to contract with or pay another person to perform construction services if the other person is not registered with the Pilot Project. There are, however, quite a few exceptions, including those who are currently registered with the earlier program. Additionally, independent contractors who do not register can avoid the fine (up to $2,000) by registering within thirty days of fines being levied. Individuals and firms that do not perform building construction or improvements are exempt from the hiring aspects of the statute.

    Minnesota’s goal is to “assist state agencies to investigate employee misclassification in the building industry.” Employees of construction firms do not individually register. Rather, the intent of the of law is to stop those who would “require any individual through coercion, misrepresentation or fraudulent means to adopt independent contractor status” or to “knowingly misrepresent or misclassify an individual as an independent contractor.”

    Read the full story…


    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Florida judge has concluded that the Chinese drywall manufacturer Taishan actively sought to sell its products in Florida and cannot now claim that it was not involved. Judge Joseph Farnia also noted that the main distributor of the drywall was, as noted in the Miami Herald, an arm of the company. Lennar Hones has sued the firm after installing drywall manufactured by the company in hundreds of homes.

    Taishan’s activities in Florida included not only distributing samples, but also hosting tours of their plants in China for construction executives, and even making customized runs. According to other reports, has lost past cases over defects in their drywall.

    Read the full story…