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

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

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

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

    New Construction Laws, New Forms in California

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

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

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

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

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

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

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

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

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

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

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

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

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

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

    Preparing for Trial on a Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code section 895, et seq.

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Colorado Senate Bill 12-181: 2012’s Version of a Prompt Pay Bill

    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

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

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

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

    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

    Florida Construction Defect Case Settled for $3 Million

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

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

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Water District Denied New Trial in Construction Defect Claim

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

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

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

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

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

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

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

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

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    Water Is the Enemy

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

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?
    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.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”

    Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

    Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”

    On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…


    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…


    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…


    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    McGrawHill Construction reports that 17 percent of new homes and remodels in 2011 were done with green building practices. Their report estimates that by 2016, this will rise to 29 to 38 percent of the market for home construction and remodeling.

    Consumers see the green buildings as more desirable, particularly where they are more energy efficient. Two thirds of builders noted their customers were interested in features that would lower the energy use of their homes. Consumers also feel that green building materials are more durable and see green homes as higher quality.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    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…


    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    July 5, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).

    Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.

    The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.

    Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.

    Read the full story…

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


    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    April 25, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Construction Law Hawaii

    After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).

    After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.

    The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.

    When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.

    Read the full story…

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


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

    December 9, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    Recently, I read an article on Engineering News-Record that outlines a remarkable movement by as many as four states, to mandate coverage of construction defects in contractor general liability insurance policies. Say what? Is this a reality? What will become of affordable insurance?

    Commercial General Liability insurance, or CGL, is your basic liability insurance. Every contractor doing business in the State of Washington, and most likely those abroad, has this insurance. Contractors buy this insurance to protect them from unforeseen liabilities arising from their negligence - and right now it’s reasonably affordable.

    Why is it so affordable in such a risk-heavy industry? Because CGL policies significantly limit the scope of their coverage. Coverage is generally afforded for damages resulting from negligence (The roofer put a hammer through the drywall contractor’s wall) or which resulted from your defective construction (the roof leaked and flooded the rest of the house). But, that coverage does not include replacement of your faulty construction (the contents of the home might be protected by your leaky roof - the leaky roof itself is not).

    The debate over coverage typically stems from the definition of “occurrence,” a term used to describe the event from which coverage arises, “resulting loss,” a term used to describe the type of loss covered.

    Read the full story…

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


    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Our congratulations to Tred Eyerly who has been blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii for five years now. Over the years, he has posted more than five hundred posts and has provided us all with fascinating insights into the laws on insurance coverage. He describes his blog as “a commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond.” We are grateful that the “beyond” has just in the last few weeks included Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, and Rhode Island (about as far from the island of Hawaii as you can get).

    You can read his blog at Insurance Law Hawaii.


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

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The stucco subcontractor for a condominium complex did not join in with the other defendants in a settlement of more than $15 million, preferring to take the case to a jury trial. That jury has found the stucco installer liable for $7.7 million to make repairs. Mark Wiechnik of Herrick Feinstein LLP wrote about the case on the Lexology web site. Mr. Wiechnik notes that the jury was shown “samples of rotted wood taken from the property as well as numerous pictures of damage resulting from the various defects.”

    Read the full story…


    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    June 28, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    According to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.

    In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.

    Read the full story…

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


    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    May 27, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Overlook, LLC, No. 4:10cv69 (E.D. Va. May 13, 2011), homeowner Edmonds sued insured developer/general contractor Overlook seeking damages resulting from defective Chinese drywall installed in Edmonds’ home. Overlook’s CGL insurer Nationwide defended Overlook under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action. The federal district trial court granted Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    June 7, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read HB 274

    Read the full story…


    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    November 7, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    If ever in need of a concise, well-reasoned opinion on “occurrence,” “property damage” and applicability of the business risk exclusions, turn to Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Construction, Inc., 2012 Wis Ct. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012).

    A contractor was hired to install concrete during construction of seven gas stations. Red-D-Mix provided the concrete. The contractor and Red-D-Mix were eventually sued by the gas stations, based upon allegations that the concrete was defectively manufactured and installed. The gas stations alleged that Red-D-Mix supplied concrete that was defective and resulted in damages, including the need to repair nearby asphalt.

    Red-D-Mix tendered to its insurers, who denied coverage. Suit was filed and the insurers moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined there were no allegations of either “property damage” or an “occurrence.” Therefore, there was no duty to defend or indemnify Red-D-Mix.

    Read the full story…

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


    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    June 10, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has ruled against a couple who sued their lawyer, after they were unhappy with the results of a construction defect case. Craig and Jeanne Petrik sued Mahaffey and Associates for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Their lawyer, Douglas L. Mahaffey, had settled their case for $400,000. The Petricks claimed Mahaffey did not have the authority make an offer to compromise.

    In the original case, Mahaffey held back the $400,000 awarded in the settlement until he and the Petricks came to terms on how much of that was owed to Mahaffey. The lower court concluded that the Petricks were due $146,323,18. The jury did not agree with the Petrik’s claim that conditions had been met in which Mahaffey would not be charging them costs.

    Judges O’Leary and Ikola wrote the opinion, with the third judge on the panel, Judge Bedworth offering a dissent only on their view of the cost waiver clause.

    Read the court’s opinion


    Association May Not Make Claim Against Builder in Vermont Construction Defect Case

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Vermont Supreme Court issued a ruling on September 28 on Long Trail House Condominium Association. The case was heard by a panel of two Supreme Court justices, Marilyn Skoglund and Brian Burgess, and three justices specially assigned for the case, Kupersmith, Davenport, and Johnson. The decision came down with a 3-2 split; Judges Kupersmith and Johnson joining in a dissent.

    In the underlying case, Stratton Corporation entered into an agreement with Engelberth Construction in which Engelberth would supply “recommendations on construction feasibility, consultation as to the selection of materials and equipment, assistance with zoning requirements and permits, and cooperation with the ‘design team’ to provide valuable engineering services.” Engelberth was not responsible to determine that the drawings and specifications were in accordance with the law and building codes, nor were they responsible “for the design team’s designs, errors, or omissions.”

    Subsequent to the agreement was a construction project which culminated in the incorporation of the Long Trail House Condominium Association. The condominium owners initiated a lawsuit over alleged defects. Stratton, Intrawest, and the association settled claims for $7,025,00 with Stratton and Intrawest both pursuing claims against Engelberth. This case is still unsettled.

    The association progressed on remediation, which cost about $1,500,00 more than was provided by the settlement, and so the association also sued Engelberth. In this case, the court granted a summary judgment to Engelberth, concluding that negligence claim was barred both “by the economic loss rule and that the absence of contractual privity was fatal to the warranty claims.”

    The court upheld both determinations of the lower court. The court noted that “the economic loss rule ‘prohibits recovery in tort for purely economic losses’” and that “in tort law, duties are imposed by law to protect the public from harm.” A negligence claim could only be supported with evidence of “some accompanying physical harm, which does not include economic loss.”

    The association made the claim that the economic loss rule applies only when there is a contractual relationship between the two parties. The court rejected this argument, citing a reference that “economic interests are protected, if at all, by contract principles, rather than tort principles.”

    Nor did the court find it persuasive that a “professional services” exception to the economic loss doctrine applied, noting that the court has rejected this notion in two prior cases. The noted that the association’s losses were purely economic, and their inability to settle those claims with Engelberth did not mean that they had not means of settling them, as they were able to settle these very claims with Stratton and Intrawest.

    The association also raised claims of an implied warranty, resting on the construction contract between Engelberth and Stratton. This was also rejected by the court, noting that Vermont “case law plainly contemplates the existence of contractual privity before a breach of implied warranty claim can be raised.” The court noted that there was neither a contract nor a sale between Engelberth and the association, and thus there were no grounds for an implied warranty. The court concluded that “the Association’s warranty remedy lies against the entity that sold it the condominium units and implicitly warranted through the sale that the units were built in a good and workmanlike manner and that they were suitable for habitation.”

    Read the court’s decision …


    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    March 3, 2011 — Original reporting by Gale Holland, Michael Finnegan and Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times

    In the latest installment of the “Billions To Spend” series of investigative reports focused on construction defects, management, and cost issues relevant to LACC’s Community College Modernization Projects, the LA Times examines the costs associated with the various layers of construction management and benefits that accrued to contractors with ties to LACC trustees.

    The reporting by the Times is seemingly critical of the project’s utilization of “body shops” an industry term for companies that function as employers of record. The article segment published today cites a number of circumstances wherein their utilization appears to have escalated costs substantially.

    “To gauge the cost of the staffing system, The Times reviewed thousands of pages of financial records from April 2007, when URS began managing the program, to July 2010. Reporters identified two dozen contractors serving as conduits for pay and benefits for employees they did not supervise.

    At least 230 people were employed in this manner, at a total cost of about $40 million, the records show.

    Approximately $18 million of the total was paid to the employees, according to the Times analysis. The remaining $22 million went to profit and overhead for contractors, the records indicate.

    For employees on its own payroll, the district says that medical and other benefits increase compensation costs 40% above base salaries. So if the district had employed its construction staff directly, the total cost for the period studied would have been $25 million instead of $40 million, a savings of $15 million, The Times calculated.”

    Read Full Story...