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

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

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

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    When is a Construction Project truly “Complete”? That depends. (law note)

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

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

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

    Amerisure Case to be Heard by Texas Supreme Court

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

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

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

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

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

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

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

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

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations

    Construction Defects: 2010 in Review

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

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

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Destruction of Construction Defect Evidence Leads to Sanctions against Plaintiff

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

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

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

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

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

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Defect Claims as Occurrences? Check Your State Laws

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

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

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

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

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

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

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

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Anaheim's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Anaheim California general contracting construction claims expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting architect expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting OSHA expert witness constructionAnaheim California general contracting soil failure expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting fenestration expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction expert witness public projectsAnaheim California general contracting construction expert testimonyAnaheim California general contracting civil engineer expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court in Seattle has rejected most of the claims made by a Des Moines man over insurance coverage for water damage to his home. Judge John C. Coughenour granted summary judgment to Liberty Northwest in Ayar v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation.

    Sayad Ayar was the general contractor for the construction of his house. As a homeowner held a $1.5 million insurance policy from Liberty Northwest (LNW) that excluded “faulty, inadequate, or defective construction.”

    In 2008, less than three years after his house was constructed, Mr. Ayar filed a claim after water leaked through his living room ceiling. LNW hired an engineering firm to investigate the damage. The engineering firm, CASE Forensics, concluded that the water intrusion was due to “the failure to install an adequate and continuous waterproof membrane, flashing, and drainage system within the balcony at the time of construction.” Ayar’s expert attributed the leakage to “damage done to the weather deck waterproofing during a storm event with high winds,” which would be covered under the policy. CASE Forensics reviewed these conclusions and rejected them. LNW denied coverage.

    Further problems lead to further investigations, and in each case, LNW attributed the problems to construction defects. During this process, LNW “authorized Ayar to cut into the ceiling’s drywall in order to assist in determining the source of the water intrusion.” Mr. Ayar moved his family to a rental home. He requested that LNW cover the rental and other other costs.

    LNW’s adjuster concluded that no coverage was available, but recommended paying Mr. Ayar $19,648.68 to reinstall drywall and repair the hole in the ceiling. The insurance company paid $2,000 to cover the cost of cutting into the ceiling. The also claimed the amount of drywall he removed was “excessive” and would not cover his relocation as “his home had been livable and because the loss was not covered.”

    Ayar made four claims to the court in support of the argument that LNW misrepresented “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” The court rejected three of these, noting that as all water damage was excluded, LNW’s citation of other sources of water intrusion was not a misrepresentation. “LNW did not rely on this provision as the reason for denying coverage.” Nor was LNW’s reference to “fungi, wet or dry rot” a misrepresentation. As for their reference to construction defects, it “was clearly appropriate given that the construction defect exclusion was the principal basis or denying the claim.” However, the court found that regarding the removal of drywall, “a triable issue of the facts exists.”

    Ayar also claimed that LNW did not conduct a reasonable investigation, but the court found no evidence to support this conclusion. “This is not a case where the insurer failed to investigate or did so only half-heartedly.” Although the thoroughness of the investigation could not questioned, the court concluded that its timing could. Ayar claimed that LNW engaged in unreasonable delays. LNW counters that the delays were due to “Ayar’s own obstructive behavior and failure to cooperate with LNW’s investigation.”

    The court dismissed all of Ayar’s claims, with the exception of whether LNW should have informed him that they would not pay for drywall repair unless there was damage, and whether LNW’s investigation failed to conclude its investigation within a thirty-day time line.

    Read the court’s decision…


    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Writing on his firm’s blog, Justin Stark discusses recent changes in construction defect claims in Oregon where, as he points out, “courts in Oregon have been lowering legal hurdles that construction defect plaintiffs must overcome in bringing their cases.” He cites a case in which water damage was discovered more than six years after construction was complete. The owners claimed breach of contract and negligence. The trial court found for the contractor, who argued “that there was no ‘special relationship’ with the owners that could support the negligence claim.”

    This was overturned on appeal, with the court concluding that if there was a violation of the building code, then the negligence claim could stand. This was appealed to the Oregon Supreme court which concluded that “neither a special relationship nor a statutory standard of care, such as the building code, is necessary to bring a negligence claim here.”

    Stark notes that “many forms of construction contract incorporate the phrase ‘workmanlike,’ which implicates the ‘common law standard of care’ in negligence law.

    Read the full story…


    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

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

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

    Read the court’s decision…


    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The AFL-CIO has announced plans to generate up to $10 billion in funding for infrastructure development, training construction workers, and making buildings more energy efficient, pledging $20 million to retrofit buildings. Bloomberg News reports that union officials made the announcement in Chicago at the Clinton Global Initiative, releasing a statement from Richard Trumka, president of the union, “we, at the AFL-CIO, believe that together, with our partners in business and government, we can profitably invest significant resources to make America more competitive and energy efficient.” A foot injury prevented Mr. Trumka from attending the event.

    The statement also quoted Mark Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, “the time is now to become intensely focused on the creation of jobs.”

    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…


    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Next June, members of the U.S. Green Building Council will be voting on changes to the LEED green building standard. “The bar is getting raised,” said Navad Malin of BuildingGreen, a consulting and publishing firm, in an article in USA Today. Under the proposed guidelines, builders would have to project energy and water use for five years as part of the certification process. However, if the occupants aren’t as green as the builders anticipated, the buildings will not lose their certification.

    The new rules will include higher energy standards, award points for avoiding potentially hazardous materials, and even determine what kind of plumbing items can be used.

    Read the full story…


    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Building Industry Association supported Assembly Bill 1892, but its goals of informing homeowners of their rights under SB800 have been accomplished through the administrative process. The Department of Consumer Affairs has now posted text on its web site noting that “prior to pursuing legal action or responding to a construction defect solicitation, you must first contact your home builder.” The text goes on to note that “if the homebuilder fails to follow any of the procedures, the homeowner is entitled to proceed with the filing of an action.”

    Read the full story…


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

    December 20, 2012 — Heidi Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    The recently decided case of Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company (Colo. Ct. App. 10CA2638, October 25, 2012), confirms that absent specific exclusions in the policy, a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy covers damages to non-defective property arising from a builder’s own defective workmanship.

    Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. (“Colorado Pool”) was hired as a subcontractor to install a swimming pool at Founders Village Pool and Community Center (“Founders Village”) in Castle Rock, Colorado.  After the concrete shell of the pool was placed, some of the rebar frame was found to be too close to the surface.  Founders Village demanded that Colorado Pool remove and replace the pool, and Colorado Pool contacted its insurance carrier, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), with which Colorado Pool held a CGL policy.  After inspecting the pool, Scottsdale’s claims adjuster stated that the insurance policy would cover losses associated with removing and replacing the pool.

    Read the full story…

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


    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


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

    May 26, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. American Building Materials, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-313-T-24-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011), insured drywall supplier ABM was sued by general contractor KB Homes seeking damages because property damage to houses built by KB Homes using defective Chinese drywall supplied by ABM. ABM’s CGL insurer Auto-Owners defended ABM under a reservation of rights and filed suit against ABM and KB Homes seeking a judicial declaration of no to duty to defend or indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit. On cross motions for summary, the federal district trial court directed entry of judgment in favor of ABM and KB Homes and against Auto-Owners, holding that Auto-Owners had a duty to defend and indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.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…


    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    July 8, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The homeowners hired the insured to raise the structure of their home twenty-four inches above the flood zone. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58985 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011). When the insured’s crew returned from lunch one day, they found the house had fallen from hydraulic jacks being used to raise the structure a few inches at a time. There was substantial damage to the entire structure.

    The homeowners sued, asserting several claims, including negligence and breach of contract. The complaint alleged the homeowners entered a contract with the insured to raise their structure while maintaining its integrity. However, the insured failed to use proper equipment, which caused the house to fall and be completely destroyed.

    The insured tendered the claim to its insurer, Lafayette Insurance Company. Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Lafayette’s subsequent motion for summary judgment contended there was no “occurrence” alleged in the underlying complaint and, even if there was, the business risk exclusions barred coverage.

    Read the full story…

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


    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Texas construction firm, founded in 1937, filed for bankruptcy, bringing twenty-two projects to a sudden halt, and resulting in the loss of jobs for hundreds of employees. Ballenger Construction told its employees to go home, as it could not complete the jobs. In some cases, work will need to be done to ensure that the work sites do not cause public safety hazards.

    Read the full story…


    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    May 26, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.

    The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”

    Read the full story…

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


    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Owners Corporation Network, a group that represents condominium owners in Australia, has raised concerns about building defects in high-rise building that can lead to safety problems. The group prepared a statement which would strengthen the rights of owners, but the government official, Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts, declined to sign it. A spokesperson for the group cited a fatal fire at a Sydney high rise, noting that “there had been issues of certification which has been a concern of the Owners Corporation Network.” The Australian Broadcasting Network reports that the government will be reviewing the laws concerning high-rise apartment buildings.

    Read the full story…


    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A new law, set to take effect in 2012, lowers the ceiling on when work must be done by a licensed contractor. Through the end of the year, projects costing $20,000 or more had to be done by an Arkansas licensed contractor. As of January 1, 2012, that new limit will be $2,000.

    This will apply to all single-family residences and according to Lovely County Citizen, covers “construction, alteration, renovation, repair, modification, improvement, removal, demotion, or addition to a pre-existing structure.” Residential building contractors will be required to have workers compensation insurance, as will home improvement contactors if they take jobs worth more than $20,000.

    Morris Dillow, a building inspector in Holiday Island, said, “It will get these scammers out of here who are ripping people off.” He cited the example of a contractor who after getting paid for roof repairs and painting, left the job unfinished.

    Read the full story…


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

    June 10, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Baldo, No. 09-338 (D. Del. June 2, 2011), claimants condominium association and unit owners sued project developer Rehoboth and general contractor Capano seeking damages because of moisture penetration property damage to common elements and individual units resulting from construction defects. Rehoboth and Capano filed a third party complaint against insured property manager Baldo alleging that, if Rehoboth and Capano were liable to claimants, Baldo was also liable because of Baldo’s failure to properly manage, maintain, and repair the property

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Colorado “occurrence”

    January 6, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

    In Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. November 1, 2011), general contractors Greystone and Branan were each sued by purchases of homes built by each alleging defective construction performed by subcontractors. CGL insurer American Family Mutual Insurance Company defended both Greystone and Brannon while co-insurer National Fire & Marine Insurance Company denied a defense. Greystone, Branan, and American Family sued National Fire for contribution towards defense costs. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for National Fire.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com