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

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

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

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

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

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

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

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

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

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

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

    Webinar on Insurance Disputes in Construction Defects

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Florida trigger

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

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

    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

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

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

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Plaintiff Not Entitled to Further Damages over Defective Decking

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

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    Good Signs for Housing Market in 2013

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

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

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

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

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

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

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

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

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Insurer Has Duty to Disclose Insured's Interest In Obtaining Written Explanation of Arbitration Award

    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener
    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 consulting architect expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting architect expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction claims expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting contractor expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting building expertAnaheim California general contracting construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction forensic expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting stucco expert witnessAnaheim California general contracting construction expert testimony
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    January 6, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The federal district court ultimately stayed a construction defect case, but offered comments on the current status of coverage disputes for such defects in Hawaii. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Simpson Mfg. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128481(D. Haw. Nov. 7, 2011).

    National Union filed a complaint for declaratory relief to establish it had no duty to defend or to indemnify Simpson Manufacturing Company in four actions pending in the Hawaii state courts. The state court actions concerned allegedly defective hurricane strap tie hold downs that were manufactured and sold by Simpson. The hurricane ties allegedly began to prematurely corrode and rust, causing cracking, spalling and other damage to homes.

    National Union contended the underlying allegations did not constitute "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," as defined in the policies.

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Work resumed after nearly three years on an office tower in Santa Clara, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Work had stalled on the building due to the economy, but now the developer is planning a second five-story building on the site. Other dormant projects in the area are also getting restarted. Santa Clara County saw the addition of 1,800 construction jobs in June.

    A spokesperson for the Operating Engineers Local 3 in Alameda told the paper, “two years ago we had five thousand folks on the out-of-work list. It’s now down to about 1,700.”

    Read the full story…


    Hospital Construction Firm Settles Defect Claim for $1.1 Million

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Law360 reports that Bovis Lend Lease has settled claims of $10 million in damages for $1.1 million. Bovis was building three annexes to a hospital in Oklahoma. The hospital alleged that a faulty moisture barrier system lead to damage throughout the hospital.

    Bovis is a division of the Lend Lease Group, a multinational construction firm based Sydney, Australia.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Bloomberg News reports that after four months of gains in construction spending, July saw a drop of 0.9 percent, wiping out June’s gain of 0.4 percent. Despite the overall decline in spending, there was an increase of 1.5 percent in expenditure on building new single-family homes and 2.8 percent on multifamily residential construction.

    Read the full story…


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

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Baker v Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, et al. is a “class action filed by homeowners who allege that their homes have a construction defect. They allege that their plumbing systems include brass fittings susceptible to corrosion and likely to cause leaks. They bring this action against the developer of their homes and the manufacturers of the brass fittings.”

    Zurn, the manufacturer of the allegedly defective brass fittings, sought a dismissal, or if that could not be achieved, then “a more definite statement, of five of the six claims.” Zurn moved for summary judgment on the sixth claim, or alternately sought “summary judgment on one of the five claims it” sought to dismiss.” The court granted in part the motion, and denied the motion for summary judgment.

    The developer, Castle & Cooke, sought dismissal of the First Amended Complaint stating “that Plaintiffs have not complied with Hawaii’s Contractor Repair Act, chapter 672E of Hawaii Revised Statutes, which requires, among other things, a plaintiff to give a contractor the results of any testing done before filing an action against that contractor.” The court couldn’t determine “certain facts essential to ruling” on Castle & Cooke’s motion, and therefore denied the motion, but ordered Plaintiffs to submit requested material by the stated deadline.

    The Baker v Castle & Cooke case began with the Plaintiffs claim that the use of yellow brass fittings can lead to construction defects. They allege that “yellow brass is particularly susceptible to dezincification, a corrosion process in which zinc leaches into potable water that comes into contact with the brass. According to Plaintiffs, as the brass corrodes, it becomes porous and mechanically weak. Plaintiffs further allege that the PEX systems in the putative class members’ homes have begun to, or are about to, leak water into the walls, ceilings, and floors of their homes. Plaintiffs allege that the leakage will cause water damage and mold growth, exposing the occupants to toxins.”

    In response to the plaintiffs’ claims, Zurn argued “because their yellow brass fittings have not failed to date, Plaintiffs fail to allege, and have no evidence showing, that they have suffered any actual injury.” Plaintiffs replied, “even if the fittings have not failed as of today, failure in the future is inevitable.”

    However, the court stated, “whether Plaintiffs have suffered any injury, or whether Plaintiffs are attempting to proceed based solely on future injury, implicates Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action, as well as whether this case is ripe for adjudication.” The court has requested the parties to submit “supplemental briefing on whether this case should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). In supplemental briefs, Zurn argues that dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs lack standing, and Castle & Cooke argues that dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe.”

    The court continues to discuss the problem of standing: “To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three things. First, the plaintiff must suffer an "injury-in-fact," which means that there must be a concrete and particularized "invasion of a legally protected interest" and the invasion is actual or imminent. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Second, the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action. Third, a favorable decision must be likely to redress the injury. Id. It is the first element (injury-in-fact) that is in issue here.”

    The court found that the plaintiffs do have standing: “Even if the court could not rely on the allegations that the pipes will soon leak, the court would conclude that, for standing purposes, Plaintiffs have a sufficient injury-in-fact in the form of their alleged economic loss.” In a hearing, Plaintiffs argued that their homes had decreased in value.

    The court also denied Castle & Cooke’s motion to dismiss based on a lack of ripeness, stating “the same reasons Plaintiffs satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing purposes, they satisfy the constitutional ripeness requirement.”

    Plaintiffs asserted six counts against Zurn. Zurn, in response, made a motion to dismiss counts VIII, IX, X, XII, and XIII. The court granted Zurn’s motion for Counts VIII, IX, and X only: “Counts VIII (product liability), IX (negligence), and X (strict liability) sound in tort. Zurn argues that, because Plaintiffs allege no injury other than to the PEX systems and the yellow brass fittings themselves, the economic loss rule bars their tort claims. The court agrees.”

    The court disagreed with Zurn’s motion regarding Count XII: “Count XII asserts that Zurn has breached the implied warranty of merchantability. Zurn argues that Count XII is barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege an injury. The court disagrees.”

    Zurn’s motion regarding Count XIII was also denied: “Count XIII asserts that Zurn violated section 480-2 of Hawaii Revised Statutes.” Furthermore, “Plaintiffs allege that Zurn ‘engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices when [it] designed, manufactured and sold Yellow Brass Fittings.’ Zurn argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under section 480-2(a) because their claims are barred by the statute of limitations and they do not adequately allege reliance or a cognizable injury. The court disagrees.”

    The court denied the motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts XI and XII.

    Castle & Cooke sought to dismiss “Plaintiffs’ claims against it under section 672E-2 of Hawaii Revised Statutes, which provides for dismissal when claimants fail to comply with chapter 672E.” There was some discussion regarding the test results. Apparently, the plaintiffs had failed to provide a written notice of claim at least 90 days before filing the action. However, it is unclear if the Plaintiffs have since complied with the requirements of the chapter. “The court has received no supplemental information from either party about whether any test results from another case have been turned over or whether those materials are subject to a confidentiality agreement. The record at this point does not establish noncompliance with the requirement in chapter 672E to provide such information. The court therefore denies the motion to dismiss.”

    In summary, “Zurn’s motion to dismiss is granted as to Count VIII, Count IX, and Count X. Zurn’s motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Plaintiffs’ other claims. Zurn’s request for a more definite statement and its summary judgment motion are denied. Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended Complaint no later than May 21, 2012.” Furthermore, “the court denies Castle & Cooke’s motion, but directs Plaintiffs to file, within two weeks, either a certificate of compliance with section 672E-3(c), or an explanation as to why they have not complied. Castle & Cooke may submit a response within two weeks of Plaintiffs’ submission. Each party’s submission is limited to 1000 words.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

    Read the full story…


    Good Signs for Housing Market in 2013

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Dan Green, a loan officer at Waterstone Mortgage, is optimistic about the construction market in 2013. He notes that the rise in building permit, housing starts, and housing completions are all good signs. Mortgage rates are still low, making these new homes attractive to buyers.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    OSHA calculates that for each 33,000 active construction workers, one will die on the job each year, making their risk over the course of their careers at one out of every 200 workers. This puts it many times over OSHA’s definition of “significant risk” of 1 death per 1,000 workers over the course of their careers. According to an article in People’s World, “the main risk of death is from falls.”

    At a talk at the American Public Health Association’s meeting, one expert noted that “construction workers make up 6 percent to 8 percent of all workers, but account for 20 percent of all deaths on the job every year.”

    Read the full story…


    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    February 10, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

    In Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dove, 714 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011), claimant Murphy-Brown hired insured Dove to repair a broken elevator belt in a grain elevator in Murphy-Brown’s feed mill. The elevator was inside a metal duct and, to access the broken belt, Dove had to cut out a section of the duct. After replacing the belt, Dove welded the metal section back to the duct. Immediately after Dove completed the welding, dust inside the duct ignited, causing an explosion in the elevator, resulting in property damage to the elevator and other property. Murphy-Brown sued Dove for negligence seeking damages for the repair and replacement of the elevator, repair and replacement of the other property, increased grain handling costs during the repairs, and loss of use.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Seattle Times reports that groundbreaking is planned for a forty-story tower in Seattle. The building process will take at least five years, during which time, according to the paper, there will be nearly eight thousand new apartments in Seattle. The planned tower will add another 386 units to that.

    The developer, Holland Partner Group, has four other apartments buildings planned or in construction currently, which will account for more than a thousand of the units being added to the city’s apartment stock.

    Read the full story…


    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.

    According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.

    Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

    Read the full story…


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

    August 4, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    On July 28, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Clasen Fruit & Cold Storage v. Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. that more than six years had passed since a contractor had concluded work and so granted a summary dismissal of the suit.

    Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. (F&M) was contracted to construct several buildings for Clasen Fruit and Cold Storage. These were completed in March, 1999. The buildings suffered wind damage to the roofs in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006. In the first two incidents, F&M repaired the roofs with Clasen paying for repairs.

    In 2005, Clasen hired Continuous Gutter to make repairs. The final incident was the collapse of the roof of one building. This was attributed to “excessive moisture in the roof’s vapor barriers.” At this point, Clasen demanded that F&M pay for repair and replacement costs. In 2008, Clasen sued F&M for damages for breach of contract and negligent design and construction of the roof.

    The decision then covered the meanings, in Washington law, of “termination of services” and “substantial completion.” The panel concluded that construction was “substantially completed in 1997” and “relevant services” by 2001. “But Clasen did not sue until 2008, some seven years after termination of any roof related services.”

    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 Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that claims of defective construction or workmanship are not an occurrence under a general liability policy. The court looked at appellate decisions and concluded that CGL policies are not intended to insure against risks under the control and management of the insured. These risks should instead be mitigated with performance bonds.

    The question was raised in the case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. The Sixth District Court of Ohio concluded it was an “open question under Ohio law whether a CGL policy covers defective construction claims.” Westfield filed a motion, granted by the Sixth Circuit, to certify the question to the state Supreme Court. The Sixth Court additionally found that the contractual liability exclusion barred coverage in the case, issues a summary judgment to Westfield.

    Read the full story…


    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


    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Yes, said the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Pope v. Heritage Communities, Inc. Heritage Communities developed Riverwalk, a community in South Carolina. During the earlier trial, HCI “conceded that construction defects existed at Riverwalk, and repairs needed to be made.” The trial court found that the construction was negligent, awarding the property owners association $4.25 million in actual damages and $250,000 in punitive damages, with the class of owners awarded $250,000 in actual damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. HCI appealed on nine issues. All were rejected by the appeals court.

    The court rejected HCI’s claim that the judge’s instruction to the jury suggested to the jury that “the court had already determined that Appellants were willful, wanton, and reckless.” But here, the appeals court found “no reversible error.”

    The general contractor for Riverwalk was BuildStar. Off-site management and sale were managed by Heritage Riverwalk, Inc., which also owned title to the property. Both these companies were owned by Heritage Communities, Inc. During the trial, an HCI employee testified that “the three corporations shared the same officers, directors, office, and telephone number.” The trial court found that the three entities were amalgamated. This was upheld by the appeals court.

    Nor did the appeals agree with the HCI that the trial court had improperly certified a class. The owners were seen as properly constituting a class. Further, the court held that the property owners’ losses were properly included by the trial court. HCI objected at trial to the inclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures, however, as they did not object that it was inadmissible, the issue could not be addressed at appeal.

    HCI argued on appeal that the trial court should not have allowed evidence of defects at other HCI developments. The appeals court noted that “the construction defects at the other HCI developments were substantially similar to those experienced by Riverwalk.”

    The court additionally found that the negligence claims, the estimated damages (since full damage could not be determined until all defective wood was removed), and the award of punitive damages were all properly applied.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Water Is the Enemy

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    So says Melissa Mitchell, writing in the blog of Community Association Consultants. She cites the nightmare scenario of “an unseen presence lurking behind the walls.” Not a horror movie, but water intrusion, which she notes can cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. Eric Hoff, of Western Architectural, is quoted that “it only takes a hole one-eighth inch diameter in a building’s exterior to allow the intrusion of 35 gallons of water over twelve months.” Destructive testing on a building in in the Pacific Northwest revealed that water intrusion had lead to structural failure of the building. The wet wood had made a home for carpenter ants. Repairs exceeded $100,000.

    Mitchell notes that “deferred maintenance can be costly” and cites the importance of preventative maintenance or the development of a maintenance plan. She concludes that “if you own or are responsible for maintaining a condominium complex, apartment building or commercial structure, it’s simply good business sense to have a building envelope assessment conducted by experts in the field.”

    Read the full story…