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

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Florida trigger

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

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

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

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

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Insurer Settles on Construction Defect Claim

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

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

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

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

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

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

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

    Architect Not Liable for Balcony’s Collapse

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

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

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

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

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

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

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

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

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

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

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

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

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    Ninety-Day Extension Denied to KB Home in Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

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

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Condo Owners Worried Despite Settlement

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court
    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. Drawing 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 slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting OSHA expert witness constructionAnaheim California general contracting construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting expert witnesses fenestrationAnaheim California general contracting construction expert witness public projectsAnaheim California general contracting building expertAnaheim California general contracting testifying construction expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction forensic expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction safety expert
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Although new home sales are still fifty percent below the average over the last forty years, the housing rebound has sent stock of homebuilders up 53 percent this year, during the same period, the S&P 500 rose only 12 percent. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that from 2005 through 2011, homebuilder stocks trailed the S&P 500.

    The growth isn’t limited to homebuilders alone. Building suppliers are also seeing a growth in sales, with profits for companies that make gypsum wallboard, cabinetry, plumbing products, and other items used in home building.

    Homebuilders have also been able to raise prices. Standard Pacific Corp of Irvine, California has raised prices and cut incentives. Nevertheless, the buyers still come. PulteGroup and D.R. Horton are also raising prices.

    Read the full story…


    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Illinois Attorney General has filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that two connected firms took money from homeowners and then failed to perform the contracted work. One of the three defendants, Chris Bidigare, was an owner of agent of both Fairway Construction and Maintenance Services, LLC, and Rock Construction Management, LLC.

    In once case, according to the article on the OakPark Patch, one homeowner provided a $111,000 down payment, only to have the company cancel the job and refuse to return the money. One homeowner was told by Fairway that she should contact their insurance provider. The insurance provider told her that Fairway’s insurance had been cancelled due to non-payment.

    The suit seeks to bar the three defendants from working in home repair in Illinois.

    Read the full story…


    Park District Sues over Leaky Roof

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Glen Ellyn Park District has filed suit against multiple firms over the leaks in the Ackerman Sports and Fitness Center. The district alleges at least twenty leaks can be found throughout the facility. In order to prevent further damage, they have put in a system of “buckets, tarps and flexible piping.”

    According to the Chicago Daily Herald, the park district has most recently added the project construction manager, the building designer, and insurer that issued a performance bond on the builder. T.A. Bowman Constructors, the builder of the project, sued the park district. They were first name in the district’s countersuit.

    The park district isn’t waiting for the outcome of the suit to repair the roof. Instead, they are using existing funds to pay for roof repairs.

    Read the full story…


    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Firms that skirt labor laws for construction workers can undercut firms that are obeying those laws. In a piece in Raleigh, North Carolina’s News & Observer, Doug Burton, a commercial masonry contractor summed it up: “my competitors are cheating.” The article describes the low-bidding firms “called their workers independent contractors ? or treated them like ghosts, paid under the table and never acknowledged.” The cost to the state is “unpaid medical bills for injured workers, uncollected business and personal taxes, and payments not made to a depleted state unemployment reserve.”

    One firm examined in the article, Martin’s Bricklaying, employs mostly immigrant Mexican laborers, many of whom are in the country illegally. One employee told the News & Observer, “we don’t complain.”

    Read the full story…


    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    March 21, 2011 — March 21, 2011 Construction Defect Journal Staff

    Assemblyman Ira Hansen and twelve additional members of Nevada’s Assembly are sponsoring Assembly Bill 285. AB 285 Revises provisions governing an award of attorney’s fees in causes of action for constructional defects. Existing law generally provides that a claimant may recover reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the claimant’s damages in a cause of action for constructional defects. (NRS 40.655)

    This bill removes this provision and instead authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party involved in such a cause of action if an independent basis for the award exists pursuant to existing law which authorizes a court to award attorney’s fees in certain circumstances, or Rule 68 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees by an offeree who rejects an offer and subsequently fails to obtain a more favorable judgment.

    In an AP report published in Business Week it is suggested that the target objective of legislators centers on what it refers to as Nevada’s "Rampant construction defect lawsuits".

    According to Business Week "The suits bring in hundreds of millions of dollars for lawyers and have put construction companies out of business. Hansen says fewer construction firms mean higher prices for Nevada consumers."

    Click Here To Read Full Text and Revisions of Assembly Bill 285


    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    May 26, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    June 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Work stopped on a $7 million construction project in Oak Harbor, Washington, after three sets of Native American remains were found. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation had suggested that the project employ an archaeologist. City, state, and tribal officials are determining what will happen next. The Seattle Times reports that Jim Slowik, Oak Harbor’s mayor, has asked for a review of why no archaeologist was part of the project.

    Read the full story…


    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    April 25, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.

    The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”

    With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.

    The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”

    In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.

    The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”

    Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”

    The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”

    In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of Franklin v. Mitchell. Walter Mitchell, doing business as Southern Classic Construction built a new home for the Franklins. The Franklins moved into the home in October 2001. In April 2006 they discovered sagging floors in both the bathroom and kitchen. They contacted Mitchell who suggested the flooring might be defective. The Franklins spent eight months attempting to contact the flooring manufacturer.

    In March 2007, the Franklins had the home inspected. The sagging was determined to be due to a loss of strength in the decking because of condensation from the air conditioning system. Air returns were not properly sealed and drawing moisture into the structure. There was mold on the decking and floor joints.

    When Mitchell was contacted by the Franklins, he told them his one-year warranty had expired but had the HVAC subcontractor, Southern Mechanical Heating & Air (owned by Mitchell’s father, Jim Mitchell), look at the situation. SMHA replaced and braced subfloors. Later, they entered the crawl space to tape ducts, seal the air return, and insulate the air vent housing. The Franklins were not satisfied with the repairs, as not all the ducts were taped, nor were the air vent housings insulated.

    Franklin complained to Walter Mitchell who again cited his one-year warranty. Jim Mitchell said he would not report complaints to his insurer, stating that the repairs were unnecessary, that the work had been done correctly in the first place, and it was only done at the request of Walter Mitchell.

    In February 2009, the Franklins sued Walker Mitchell. Mitchell denied the claims, citing in part the statute of limitations. Mitchell also filed complaints against three subcontractors, including his father’s firm. Mitchell received a summary judgment as the case started after Alabama’s six-year statute of limitations.

    The appeals court rejected the Franklin’s argument that the claim of damage did not start until they were aware it was due to a construction defect. The court noted that as Walter Mitchell was licensed as a “residential home builder, the statute the Franklins cite did not apply, as it concerns architects, engineers, and licensed general contactors.”

    Nor did they feel that Mitchells’ claim that his warranty had expired were sufficient to override the statute of limitations, quoting an earlier case, “Vague assurances do not amount to an affirmative inducement to delay filing suit.” Their claim of subsequent negligent repairs was rejected because Mitchell did not direct the specific actions taken by his father’s firm.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction Defect Destroys Home, Forty Years Later

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Fire investigators in Monroe, North Carolina have blamed a nail as the source of a fire that lead to a home being declared a total loss. The nail, part of the original construction, nicked a wire within a wall, causing a short, which started a fire. The home was built in the late 1960s.

    WBTV reported that the homeowner was awakened by a power outage. He went outside and saw flames coming from a vent in the roof. He was unable to contain the fire with a garden hose. Neighbors called firemen who were able to stop the blaze.

    Read the full story…


    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    American Woodmark, the manufacturer of several national brands of cabinets and vanities, saw greater than anticipated earnings in its most recent quarter. Their revenue was $148.3 million, an increase of 13% over the same quarter a year prior. They saw a 40% increase in sales. As a result, their per-share earnings were 7 cents, instead of the projected loss of 3 cents per share. Forbes reports that the share price for American Woodmark has been rising in August 2012.

    Read the full story…


    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

    Read the full story…


    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Federal Highway Administration has released a list of bridges and overpasses that may be prone to corrosion problems due to grout that was in chlorides when it was supposed to be completely free of them. Currently, the FHA is working with state departments of transportation to determine if the defective grout was indeed used on additional bridges and overpasses. The initial FHA list of structures determined to have been built with the defective grout lists thirty-four sites, of which four are in Ohio, the largest number for any state.

    California contains only one such site, the intersection of the 55 and 405 freeways, one of the few items on the list not designated as a bridge.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    November 2011 marked the first anniversary of the Construction Defect Journal. During the first year our staff and contributors in the insurance and legal communities have compiled several hundred articles of interest to the construction defect and claims community.

    Each of these articles are maintained in the CDJ archives, and are accessible at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/archives.html. Each story in the archives is listed in the order it was posted to the archives. Each story in the archives opens up in its own page, so you can easily locate topics and articles of interest.

    If you’re new to Construction Defect Journal, or just want peruse past articles, please take a moment to visit the CDJ Archives page. Also please feel encouraged to submit your firm’s articles or legal publications of interest to the CD community at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/submitStory.html.


    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.

    The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”

    In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”

    Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    Read the full story…


    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Courthouse News has a summary of the current lawsuit over a Nevada conspiracy to defraud homeowners by taking control of homeowner boards and then providing inadequate repairs. Homeowners in eight Las Vegas area communities are involved in the suit, which claims that the conspirators purchased units in the communities and then transferred fractional interests to others to allow them to run for HOA board elections. The suit claims that David Amesbury and his firm helped manipulate the elections.

    Once homeowner boards were controlled by the conspirators, Nancy Quon, the construction defect attorney whose recent death appears to be by suicide, handled the litigation against homebuilders. She would settle out of court, engaging Silver Lining Construction to “do very minor and superficial repairs” to the homes. The remainder of the money was split by the conspirators. The suit also notes that the construction defect claims were “frivolous,” and?in addition to the negative publicity?caused the homes to lose at least 5% of their value.

    Read the full story…


    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

    McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

    AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

    She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

    Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Reporting on the site VegasInc.com, Liz Benton notes that “nobody wants to take the fall for what happened at Harmon.” Work on the Harmon hotel building in Las Vegas’s CityCenter stopped in 2008 after 26 of the planned 49 stories were completed. Lorence Slutzky, a construction law professor at John Marshall Law School and a partner with the Chicago firm Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor told Benton that while inspectors and others are complicit, “the real responsibility rests with Perini, which has an obligation to comply with the plan specifications.” Perini’s claim is that they were given faulty design drawings. MGM disputes this.

    Perini has offered to repair the building defects, however MGM has released a statement that they have “zero confidence or trust that Perini can and will properly fix a building it has so badly constructed thus far.” One MGM spokesperson likened these requests from Perini to “the director of ‘Ishar’ demanding a sequel.” “Ishtar,’ cost Columbia Pictures $55 million dollars and earned only $4.2 million in its initial run. Perini claims that MGM halted work because of the economy.

    Read the full story…