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

    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    California Supreme Court Binds Homeowner Associations To Arbitration Provisions In CC&Rs

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

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

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

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

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

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

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    The Complete and Accepted Work Doctrine and Construction Defects

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

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

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

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

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

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

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

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

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

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

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Construction Defect Destroys Home, Forty Years Later

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

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

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

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

    Construction Defect Lawsuits? There’s an App for That

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

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

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

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Construction Defects: 2010 in Review

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

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

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

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

    Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    San Diego Construction Defect Claim Settled for $2.3 Million

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Loss Caused by Seepage of Water Not Covered

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Anaheim, California Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Anaheim California general contracting ada design expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction expert testimonyAnaheim California general contracting civil engineer expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting building code expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting eifs expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting architectural engineering expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction expert witness public projectsAnaheim California general contracting roofing construction expertAnaheim California general contracting window expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

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

    July 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Acting on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:

    1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter? 2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552? 3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?

    The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.

    The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”

    The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

    Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

    Read the full story...


    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The indictments continue in the Las Vegas HOA scandal. A lawyer for the Justice Department told the judge in the case that “we expect several indictments before the end of the year.” According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, “a dozen or more” additional people will be charged in the conspiracy.

    The judge in the case, Senior U.S. District Judge Lloyd George, told prosecutors that he wanted to address the issue of compensation for homeowners. Currently, defendants have agreed to pay $1.5 million to compensate homeowners associations and banks. Vistana homeowners have claimed that the conspirators got the bulk of a $19 million construction defect settlement.

    Read the full story…


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

    July 10, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    By now, you have probably heard that the USGBC has decided to delay implementation of its previously named “LEED 2012” rating system. What you might not know is exactly why this is happening. Rest assured that the decision was not made willy nilly ?Äì LEED 2012 had many industrial groups running for the hills.

    I have spent the past few weeks reading a number of articles on the backlash. LEED 2012 was intended to create a seismic shift; it was not a mere update. A strict focus on reduction of chemicals, created mass panic that a large number of material providers’ products would essentially be banned from green projects ?Äì meaning most local, state and federal projects.

    Read the full story…

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


    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    June 6, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insured’s request for a defense when sued in a construction defect action was denied under the owned property exclusion and the alienated property exclusion in1777 Lafayette Partners v. Golden Gate Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48562 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2011).

    In 1999, Lafayette Partners purchased an abandoned walnut processing factory to convert into living and working units. The property was developed into a rental property from 2000-2001, and thereafter rented. In May 2003, Lafayette Partners entered into a sales agreement with Wolff Enterprises LLC. The sale closed in February 2005. Wolff then converted the rental units into condominiums.

    In December 2007, the Walnut Factory Owners Association sued Wolff for construction defects. In Lafayette Partners was added to the suit in 2009. The suit alleged a variety of defective conditions, including the roofs, exteriors, windows, electrical , plumbing, and mechanical components and systems.

    Read the full story…

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


    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    BusinessWire reports that the Chelsea Court Homeowners Association has settled their construction defect case for $5.4 million. That works out to $169,000 per unit, which BusinessWire describes as “California’s largest per-unit recovery known to be on record to date.”

    Most of the money in the settlement is coming from insurance companies for the builder and thirteen subcontractors. Issues included roof and window leaks, deck failures, and unsafe walkways.

    Read the full story...


    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    March 28, 2012 — Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law North Carolina

    Year-end economic indicators demonstrate that private commercial construction may be increasing in 2012, primarily as demand grows for new projects built in the United States.

    According to an article in Businessweek, the Architecture Billings Index held at 52 in December, indicating a modest expansion in the market. The American Institute of Architects said that the commercial and industrial component of the number climbed to 54.1 in December, the highest in 10 months.

    The monthly survey of U.S.-based architecture firms is one of the main indicators of nonresidential construction, and these numbers suggest that modest improvement may be on the horizon.

    The information is confirmed by data from the Census Bureau that shows that spending on lodging, office, commercial and manufacturing buildings grew 8.2 percent in November to $9.2 billion from a year ago. These types of commercial and industrial projects are historically canaries in the mine and are usually the first part of the industry to improve as the economy expands.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.


    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The DeKalb County School District has made a partial settlement in a lawsuit over their claims of mismanagement of construction projects. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the school board settled with E. R. Mitchell & Co., the smaller of two firms that they have sued. As part of the settlement, Mitchell will be testifying against their former partner. Claims from the other side of the lawsuit are that the school board improperly fired the Heery/Mitchell partnership. The superintendant who fired the company, Crawford Lewis, and his chief operations office, Pat Reid, have since been charged with criminal conspiracy to defraud the construction program. A lawyer for Heery said that “we believe that when presented to a jury, Heery will be vindicated.”

    Read the full story…


    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    March 14, 2011 — Original article by by Melissa Brumback on March 14, 2011

    Despite foundation challenges, construction is almost complete on the expansion at University of North Carolina’s Kenan stadium. The project started with a deep foundation system from design-build contractor GeoStructures. Known as the Carolina Student-Athlete Center for Excellence, the addition was built on a parcel with a knotty mix of fill soils, subsurface boulders and varying depths to rock. To achieve uniform foundation support, GeoStructures designed a Micropile system (also known as a Mini pile system) which could be drilled into the variable ground conditions.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl law.com.


    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Austin Business Journal reports that remediation is about to begin on Met Center 10, a building that was “at the center of a complex structural defect case.” Claims were made that Grubb & Ellis failed to disclose known structural defects to a group of investors who purchased the building. The brokerage was ordered to pay $6.75 million. Repairs will take an estimated six months at a cost of $3.7 million.

    Read the full story…


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

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”

    After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.

    The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.

    In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.

    Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.

    In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    June 7, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Under a new law, Texas HB 274, the Texas Supreme Court will be making rules for motions to dismiss and to expedite suits of less than $100,000. The law also contains two “loser pays” provisions. If a lawsuit is found dismissed for having “no basis in fact or law,” the losing side must pay attorney costs. The other provision caps award of attorney fees if plaintiffs reject settlement offers. Texas Lawyer quotes Houston attorney Mike Gallagher as saying this will affect “the practice of everyone who handles significant lawsuits.”

    Gregory Marcum, whose practice includes construction defect litigation, plans to contact insurance companies, as the new law may save them money. “It will definitely be a factor in the defense strategy for handling a case.” He notes that “any insurance carrier would want that done.”

    Marcum notes that the offer-of-settlement rules only apply when cases go to trial. “Almost all cases settle.”

    Read HB 274

    Read the full story…


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

    October 23, 2012 — Heidi J. Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    The Colorado Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 (“HPA”), codified at C.R.S. § 13-20-806(7), specifically voids express waivers of, or limitations on, a residential property owner’s ability to enforce any rights, remedies, and damages provided by law in a construction defect case. Practically speaking, this means that limitation of liability provisions in contracts between construction professionals and residential homeowners are void and will not be enforced in Colorado. The HPA can extend even further, however, to subcontractors on residential projects, as seen in a recent District Court ruling.

    The HPA was tested in Thacker v. Gallery Homes, et al., v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., et al., Larimer County District Court Case No. 2007CV1195. Gallery Homes hired Terracon to provide geotechnical and structural engineering services at the Colony Ridge subdivision in Loveland, Colorado. Terracon performed work for Gallery Homes under three separate contracts, each of which included a provision limiting Terracon’s total liability to Gallery Homes.

    After the project was completed, two homeowners filed suit against Gallery Homes for alleged construction defects involving movement of their basement floor systems and foundations and damage to porches, patios, garages, and driveways. Gallery Homes sued Terracon as a third-party defendant, and Terracon sought to enforce its limitation of liability provisions via a partial summary judgment motion.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heidi J. Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com


    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…


    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The United State District Court in California has dismissed the claims of a contractor against the United States government, on the grounds that it was not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The origins of the case are in a related construction defect claim. The current plaintiff, Performance Contracting, Inc., did the lath and plaster work for a building for the Department of Veterans Affairs. After the building was completed, the Veterans Affairs complained to the general contractor, Wynema, Inc., of water intrusion problems.

    Wyema and Performance conducted testing and the water intrusion was found to be due to “a variety of design defects and omissions, including: 1) omission of proper window flashing; 2) inadequate waterproof membrane around the windows; 3) inadequate T-molding around the windows; 4) lack of a window sill pan for the windows; 5) lack of any backing in the window framing; 6) lack of any backing for the stucco expansion joints and seams; and 7) failure to require that a performance mock-up of the window assembly and adjacent areas be built and water tested.” Wyema filed a construction defect action against Performance and other subcontractors.

    In the current case, Performance claims that Veteran Affairs was negligent, that it “breached its duty to Plaintiff when it provided deficient plants and specifications” and “failed to properly oversee construction and inspect Project work.” The court determined that it could not hear this case, noting that “Federal Courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions.”

    Performance raised its claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The judge was not persuaded by this claim, noting that the FTCA does not apply to purported breach of the General Contract. The FTCA waives the government’s sovereign immunity in cases of “injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”

    Performance was unable to pursue its claims in the Court of Federal Claims as there was no contract between Performance and the government. However, the court noted that Performance’s inability to file suit in the Court of Federal Claims does not open up a path to the District Court. “Litigants are not guaranteed a forum in which to sue the United States.” The court further noted that “if this Court were to accept Plaintiff’s logic, non-parties to contracts, but not parties, would be free to pursue contract claims in the fora of their choosing.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    July 22, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A year after residents were forced to leave Dolphin Towers in Sarasota, Florida because of concrete problems, some residents are defaulting on their obligations, abandoning their units. In June, the building’s insurer, Great American, rejected a claim, arguing that the building’s problems were due to latent defects, not covered under the policy. Repair estimates, previously put at $8.2 million, have now risen to $11.5 million. If homeowners cover this cost, it would require an assessment of about $100,000 for each unit.

    About thirty owners are in arrears on dues and fees. Charlotte Ryan, the president of the Dolphin Tower board, wrote to owners, that “the board will have no choice but to lien your property and pursue foreclosure if you do nothing to bring your delinquencies up to date.” However, as homeowners default, the funding for repairs is imperiled. The board has already spent more than $500,000 on shoring up the building and hiring consultants. Their lawyers, on the other hand, are working on a contingency basis.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The blog Stucco & Insulation Contractor writes up some details on a “relatively new modification to modern Exterior Insulation Finish Systems,” known as “geometrically defined insulation boards.” They note that the insulation has grooves cut in the back to provide a route for water to drain, instead of getting trapped. They note that when EIFS is installed by a skilled applicator, this is unnecessary. However, with less experienced (and cheaper) installers, problems are more likely.

    By cutting these channels, the application of EIFS is rendered “idiot proof,” as they note. Their preference would be that EIFS installers take the time to do the job right, but call this “a step in the right direction.”

    Read the full story…