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

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

    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

    Florida Construction Defect Case Settled for $3 Million

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

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

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Yellow Brass Fittings Play a Crucial Role in Baker v Castle & Cooke Homes

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Alleging Construction Defects Pled as Breach of Contract

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

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

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

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

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

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

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

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

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

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

    Construction Defects Leave Animal Shelter Unusable

    Courts Are Conflicted As To Whether "Good Faith" Settlement Determinations Can Be Reviewed Via Writ Petition Or Appeal

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

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

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

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

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

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

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

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

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

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

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

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

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

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

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Insurance Firm Under No Duty to Defend in Hawaii Construction Defect Case

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

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage
    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 expert witness commercial buildingsAnaheim California general contracting construction expertsAnaheim California general contracting expert witness roofingAnaheim California general contracting window expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting consulting general contractorAnaheim California general contracting roofing construction expertAnaheim California general contracting construction expert witnessesAnaheim California general contracting construction expert witness public projectsAnaheim California general contracting architectural expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    One of the odder twists of the Las Vegas construction defect scandal was the charge that Nancy Quon’s boyfriend helped her in an initial suicide attempt. Quon, implicated by not charged in the case of taking control of homeowner boards in order to profit from construction defect settlements. William Webb was alleged to have bought the drug GBH in order to allow Quon, his girlfriend, to commit suicide. Ms. Quon later overdosed on a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.

    In addition to pleading guilty to the drug charges, Webb also made a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he did not admit guilt in an insurance fraud charge, but acknowledged that prosecutors would likely be successful at obtaining a conviction. Webb will be sentenced February 7 and is expected to receive a sentence of six years imprisonment.

    Read the full story…


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

    August 2, 2012 — Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    A recent opinion from the Colorado Court of Appeals is a cautionary tale concerning the calculation of pre-judgment interest. See Hendricks v. Allied Waste Transportation, Inc., 2012 WL 1881004 (Colo. App. 2012). The Hendricks sued Allied after one of its drivers backed into the corner of their home with an Allied garbage truck. At trial, a jury awarded the Hendricks $160,100 in damages. Although the jury was instructed on the cost of repairs, diminution in value, and non-economic damages, the parties agreed to a general verdict form that did not ask the jury to specify the types of damages awarded. The Hendricks sought to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest and costs, which the trial court granted.

    Allied appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by awarding the Hendricks prejudgment interest from the date their property was damaged. Id. at *7. The Colorado Court of Appeals found no error, and affirmed.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Ms. Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com


    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    December 9, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Applying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit found a duty to defend construction defect claims where the faulty workmanship was unintentional. Greystone Const. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22053 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). A prior post [here] discussed the Tenth Circuit’s certified question to the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter, a request that was rejected by the Colorado court.

    In two underlying cases, Greystone was sued by the homeowner for damage caused to the foundation by soil expansion. In both cases, the actual construction was performed by subcontractors. Further, in neither case was the damage intended or anticipated. Nevertheless, National Union refused to defend, contending property damage resulting from faulty construction was not an occurrence.

    Relying on a Colorado Court of Appeals case, General Security Indemn. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), the district court granted summary judgment to National Union.

    On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether Colorado legislation enacted to overturn General Security could be applied retroactively. The statute, section 13-20-808, provided courts "shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured."

    Read the full story…

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


    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    As One World Trade Center rises, so does the price tag. After construction delays and cost overruns, the cost of the building at the site of the September 11 attacks has risen to $3.8 billion. Part of the expense of the skyscraper is the heavily reinforced base of the building. The elevator shafts are also heavily reinforced, all part of guarding against future terrorist attacks.

    In comparison, the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, cost only $1.5 billion, less than half the cost of One World Trade Center. As a result, the Port Authority does not see the building as being profitable in near future. In order to fund it, the agency is raising tolls on bridge and tunnel traffic.

    Currently, about the half the unfinished building is leased. Construction is expected to conclude in 2013.

    Read the full story…


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

    December 9, 2011 — Heather M. Anderson, Colorado Construction Litigation

    The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently ruled that primary insurers are necessary parties, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, in a declaratory judgment action being pursued by an excess carrier. See Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. LNC Communities II, LLC, 2011 WL 5548955 (D. Colo. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 is almost identical to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and pertains to the joinder of persons needed for “just adjudication.” The Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (“ICSOP”) sought a declaratory judgment that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the defendants (collectively referred to as “Lennar Companies”) with regard to the underlying lawsuit brought by The Falls at Legend Trail Owners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). Id. at *2. In its lawsuit, the HOA alleged Lennar Companies were liable for construction defects at The Falls at Legend Trail residential development.

    Lennar Companies held two primary insurance policies, one issued by OneBeacon Insurance Company f/k/a General Accident Insurance Company (“General Accident”) and the other issued by American Safety Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“American Safety”). Lennar Companies also carried excess policies issued by ICSOP and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (“Ohio Casualty”).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com


    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…


    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Donna DiMaggio Berger, writing in the Sun Sentinel argues those may be the only current choices in Florida. A recent court case, Lakeview Reserve HOA v. Maronda Homes has caused a swift response from the legislators. Ms. Berger notes that the construction defect bill, HB 1013, “would take away a homeowner’s rights to pursue a developer for defects to the driveways, roads, sidewalks, utilities, drainage areas and other so-called ‘off-site’ improvements.” The alternative? She notes that applying the Maronda decision would “bankrupt developers who don’t build defect-free roads and sidewalks.”

    Read the full story…


    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Peter Lissner, a former Nevada homebuilder, has created a new site to help track homes that have been involved in construction defect litigation. His site, housefaxreview.com, collections documentation about homes where claims of construction defects have been made. He told The Builders Magazine concerns about “the number of homes that have been served notices, received compensation, yet the homes weren’t repaired.” On the site, the creator is identified as “a family owned builder.” According to the site, “the builder had no claims until the neighborhood reached the statutory claims limit 10 years.”

    Lissner also claims that in many cases, after settling construction defect lawsuits, the homeowners sell to subsequent buyers without disclosing the lawsuit or their failure to repair. “Who is going to let the new homeowner know about the issue?” he asks.

    Documents on the site are priced according to their relevance. Lissner notes that those who provide documents to the site will receive free access.

    Read the full story…


    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    January 6, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Eighth Circuit determined a jury instruction regarding the applicability of the "all-risk" policy’s exclusion for "collapse" was inadequate. See KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22158 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2011).

    KAAPA had nine large, cylindrical, stainless steel tanks fabricated at its location. Soon after operations began in 2003, some of the tanks experienced unusual movement and began to shift. A geotechnical engineer found "silty clay" had been used for infill instead of compacted granular fill called for in engineering drawings. A year long plan to repair all nine tanks was implemented.

    Affiliated’s "all-risk" policy excluded damage caused by faulty workmanship. It also excluded damage caused by settling or cracking. The settling exclusion went on to provide, "This exclusion will not apply to loss or damage resulting from collapse of: a building or structure; or material part of a building or structure." Affiliated denied coverage because of the faulty workmanship and settling exclusions.

    Read the full story…

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


    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    December 20, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    On a certified question from the Federal District Court, the Supreme Court of Kentucky decided that an anti-assignment provision in a policy is unenforceable.Wehr Constructors v. Paducah Div. Assur. Co. of Am., 2012 Ky. LEXIS 183 (Ky. Oct. 25, 2012).

    Before building an addition to its hospital, Murray Calloway County Hospital purchased a builder's risk policy from Assurance Company of America.The policy provided, "Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without Assurance's written consent . . . ." The Hospital contracted with Wehr Constructors to install concrete subsurfaces and vinyl floors in order to expand the hospital. After installation, a portion of the floors and subsurface work was damaged. The Hospital submitted a claim to Assurance for $75,000, but the claim was denied.

    Wehr sued the Hospital to recover money for its work on the construction project. In settling the case, the Hospital assigned to Wehr any claim or rights the Hospital had against Assurance.

    Read the full story…

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


    Webinar on Insurance Disputes in Construction Defects

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Seth Lamden, of the firm Neal Gerber Eisenberg will be presenting a webinar on “Insurance Coverage Disputes in Construction Defects” on July 17, 2012 at 1 p.m. EDT. Mr. Lamden’s presentation will focus on “handling both the construction and insurance components of construction defect claims.” He will be discussing recent case law and new insurance products. The presentation will present information on evaluating various types of insurance policies, explaining common issues, contract requirement, and the economic loss doctrine. Mr. Lamden will advise attendees on how to avoid getting into a construction defect case. He will conclude his presentation with a brief question-and-answer session.

    Read the full story…


    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Washington Township in Ohio has filed a lawsuit against Underground Utilities for their handling of construction fill on a road project. The City of Mansfield had hired the firm to improve road safety. The lawsuit is over the company’s actions in processing soil for fill, which they are doing on three vacant lots that are zoned for residential use. Washington Township Trustee Jack Butler told the Mansfield Journal that “what brought the lawsuit to a head was the fact that the contractor did not control the dust.” Subsequent receiving notices of zoning violations, the company began to move its operation to another site.

    Read the full story…


    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

    Read the full story…


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

    June 19, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    A months back, I discussed the passage of SHB 1559. The law changes the existing statutory indemnification regulation to include the costs of defense and to rid contracts of unfair indemnification for someone else’s sole negligence. The law went into effect last week!

    Check back to my recent article on the changes set forth in the new law. The amendments to RCW 4.24.115 will broaden the existing law and clarify what types of indemnification are unenforceable. In short, an “up the chain” contractor (such as a general contractor) cannot expect to pass 100% of the defense and indemnification obligations downward if it is partially liable.

    Read the full story…

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


    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    August 4, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court in Colorado has determined in the case of RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America that Travelers did not breach its insurance contract when it refused to cover RK Mechanical.

    RK Mechanical performed an HVAC installation for a residential project for which J.E. Dunn Rocky Mountain was the general contractor. As part of the work, RK “installed approximately one hundred seventy-one CPVC flanges, which were manufactured by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company.” Two of these flanges failed in June, 2009 leading to water damage. RK replaced the cracked flanges and engaged in water remediation. “Travelers paid Dunn and RK for the costs associated with the water damage associated with the Flange Failure.” The court notes that Travelers did not pay for the cracked flanges, however.

    Subsequently, RK examined the remaining flanges, finding many cracked ones. These were replaced with new ones. Later, all the Charlotte flanges were replaced with ones from another manufacturer. RK applied for coverage.

    All sides brought in their experts: “Microbac Laboratories, Inc. prepared a report on behalf of RK concluding that the Flange Failure was due, in part, to an assembly or workmanship defect in addition to manufacturing defects in the flanges. Higgins & Associates prepared a report on behalf of Travelers concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation. Plastic Failure Labs prepared a report on behalf of the flange manufacturer concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation by RK.”

    At this point, Travelers denied coverage. RK sued alleging that the coverage for flange failure and water damage implicitly includes mitigation costs. The court rejected this claim, noting it would do so even if Travelers had paid for the replacement of the first two flanges. Nor did the court find that replacement of the faulty flanges is not "a covered cause of loss." RK also argued that as it was required to mitigate, Travelers was obligated to cover costs. However, the court found that “the mitigation costs expended by RK were not incurred in an effort to avoid damages from a potential breach of contract by Travelers.” The court additionally noted that despite RK’s claims, the Colorado courts have not found a common law duty to mitigate. Finally, the court found that the exclusions in the policy were not in violation of public policy.

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.

    The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”

    Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”

    The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.

    Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.

    The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.

    The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”

    The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    August 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Boston’s Tip O’Neil Tunnel, part of the “Big Dig” project, is suffering from water leaks which has lead to millions of dollars of damage, according to an article in the Boston Globe. The report quotes Frank DePaola, the highway administrator, as likening the water leaks to “three garden hoses.” The project’s chief engineer notes that those “three garden hoses” add up to 17 million gallons a year.

    Further, the chief engineer reports notes that the leaks could compromise both safety and structural integrity. Problems have included a 110-pound light fixture that fell in February, ventilation ducts clogged with ice during the winter, and mold in utility rooms and ventilation buildings.

    Read the full story…


    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Jim Haugey, the Chief Economist for Reed Construction Data noted that new residential construction spending fell 0.2% in June and a slightly larger drop of 0.5% in residential remodeling. While economic growth is still low, Haugey states that homebuilders have “record low inventories.” He forecasts a shrinkage of 1.5% in 2011, followed by about 20% growth in 2012.

    Read the full story…