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

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

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

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

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

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

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

    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

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

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

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

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

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

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    The Complete and Accepted Work Doctrine and Construction Defects

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

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

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

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Insurer Settles on Construction Defect Claim

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    Florida trigger

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

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

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

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

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

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

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

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

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

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

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Construction Defects Leave Animal Shelter Unusable

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Utah Construction Defect Claims Dependant on Contracts

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

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

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
    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.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    March 16, 2011 — March 16, 2011 - Construction Defect Journal Staff

    A recent post to the Markusson, Green, Jarvis Blog reports on an important appeals decision which promises to impact construction defect litigation in Colorado.

    The post provides analysis on the recovery of inconvenience damages. The focus of the piece is centered on Hildebrand v. New Vista Homes II, LLC, 08CA2645, 2010 WL 4492356 (Colo. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010), wherein it was held that " the plain language of Construction Defect Action Reform Act permits recovery of damages for inconvenience, and that the trial court did not err by allowing inconvenience damages to go to the jury".

    According to the MGJ Blog "The Hildebrand decision is important because it provides Construction Defect Plaintiffs with a foothold for collecting emotional damages. While several questions of law remain as to who or under exactly what circumstances a Plaintiff may recover these types of damages, the Hildebrand case has clearly set forth that emotional damages may be considered as part of actual damages pursuant to CDARA."

    Read Full Story...


    Water District Denied New Trial in Construction Defect Claim

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The United District Court in Tampa, Florida has rejected the motion by Tampa Bay Water for a new trial in their claims that HDR Engineering negligently designed the C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The claims went to a jury trial, at the end of nineteen days, the jury deliberated for four hours, finding for HDR Engineering. In rejecting Tampa Bay’s motion, the judge noted that “on close examination, TBW’s contentions have little to do with the factual determinations of the jury, which evidently concluded that TBW did not meet its burden of proof, an unsurprising conclusion, considering HDR’s evidence and the weaknesses in TBW’s evidence.”

    The court cited an earlier decision that “a new trial may be granted where the jury’s ‘verdict is against the great, not merely the greater weight of the evidence.’” However, the court found that the jury’s verdict “was well supported by the evidence” and that “TBW’s case showed signs of weakness at virtually every turn.” TBW’s expert “changed his opinion late in the case concerning the culpability of the contractor.” As a result, “Brumund’s change in opinions effectively bolstered HDR’s faulty construction defense.”

    TBW also raised claims a pre-trial order prevented it “from introducing evidence that HDR did not fulfill its contractual quality control responsibilities” and that evidentiary rulings prevented “TBW from introducing evidence concerning quality control.” However, TBW dismissed its claims over quality control, then “attempted no less than three times during ?Ķ testimony to introduce evidence of the purpose of the quality control requirement and quality control assurance.”

    TBW also contended “that it was precluded from introducing evidence that HDR’s inspectors never reported that the protective layer exceeded three feet after inspecting the work as part of HDR’s quality control duties.” The court noted that “TBW asked these very questions of HDR’s Engineer of Record.” The court also found that testimony regarding photographs of the construction was properly excluded as TBW never entered the photos into evidence.

    TBW had made an argument for a jury view. Prior the trial “after discussion, and to their credit, the parties agreed to a jointly-prepared helicopter ‘flyover’ video.” The court noted that “the size and physical characteristics of the reservoir were adequately and effectively depicted in the video.” The hazards the jury did not, then, have to encounter included the narrow, unpaved rim of the reservoir, snakes, and alligators.

    Read the court’s decision…



    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

    Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

    Read the full story...


    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    September 1, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The underlying plaintiff’s allegations contended the contractor was in breach of contract for construction defects caused in building her home. Accordingly, the court found no coverage.See Nat’l Builders and Contractors Ins. Co. v. Slocum, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81694 (S.D. Miss. July 26, 2011).

    Slocum Construction LLC sold a home it built to Laura Peterson. Subsequently, Peterson filed suit, alleging a breach of the contract and seeking rescission and cancellation of the contract. Peterson further alleged at least thirty-three specific defects in the construction of the house.

    Slocum tendered to its insurer, National Builders and Contractors Insurance Company (NBCI). NBCI filed suit for a declaratory judgment.

    Read the full story…

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


    Loss Caused by Seepage of Water Not Covered

    July 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The anti-concurrent clause in a homeowner’s policy barred coverage for damage caused by hidden seepage. Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co., 2012 Mass. LEXIS 462 (Mass. May 29, 2012).

    The insured had a concrete patio built along the rear wall of her house at a grade higher than the home’s foundation. Years later, severe deterioration was discovered in the floor joists, wall studs and other parts of the home. The insured held a homeowner’s policy with Safety. An inspector hired by Safety determined the deterioration was caused by the placement of the concrete patio slab adjacent to the wall of the house, allowing water to seep onto the top of the foundation.

    Safety denied coverage because the damage was caused by a combination of surface water, deterioration, settling and improper construction of the concrete patio.

    Read the full story…

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


    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    April 18, 2011 — April 18, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    Albert Wolf, a principal in Wolf Slatkin & Madison P. C., has written an interesting article on statutes of limitations in construction defect claims in Colorado. While Wolf states that in most cases, “construction defect claims against construction industry participants (contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, etc.) requires that suits be started within two years after construction defects have been or should have been—in the exercise of reasonable diligence (care)—discovered,” if a project used the AIA General Conditions (AIA Document A2010) before the 2007 edition, the “statutes of limitations begin to run (accrue) at either substantial completion or breach by the contractor (installation of defective work), depending on the circumstances.”

    “That’s a huge difference,” Wolf writes in his article. “For example, if the structural defect caused by faulty foundation work is not discovered or discoverable until walls begin to exhibit cracking more than two years after the building is completed, the owner’s claim against the contractor may be barred if the AIA provision is applied.”

    Read the full story...


    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that Nevada’s construction defect and minimum wage laws are hampering job growth. The organization conducted a survey, and although only about two percent of the members responded, they passed the opinions of the group on to Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has said, according to the report by Fox News Reno, that he wants the state to be more business friendly. He supports reforms to Nevada’s construction defect laws, saying that he’d “like to see some reform” on the issue of mandatory attorney’s fees.

    Randi Thompson, the spokesperson for the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said that members of her organization would like to see current Nevada construction defect law revoked. She described current law as “driven towards lawyers and not toward protecting consumers.”

    Read the full story…


    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Home prices in October were up more than six percent compared with prices in October 2011. The LA Times noted that some of the strongest gains were in California and Arizona. The Phoenix metropolitan area saw a 24.5% rise in home prices. In California, Riverside and Los Angeles were just above the national average, at 7.3% and 6.4%, contributing to the state’s overall nine percent increase.

    The news wasn’t good throughout the entire country, as five states did not see any price increases. Mark Fleming, the chief economist at CoreLogic, a research firm in Irvine, California said that “the housing recovery that started earlier in 2012 continues to gain momentum.

    Read the full story…


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

    September 1, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    Remember Courthouse Square? I sure do. We have talked about the closed and evacuated LEED certified building a couple of times here on Builders Counsel. Well, it’s back in the news. This time building professionals are pointing fingers — but there is some talk about a fix. Still, its LEED certification remains.

    If you read my past articles about Courthouse Square, you can get caught up on this mess. The short of it is that Salem, Oregon had the five-story government building and bus mall completed in 2000 for $34 Million. It was awarded LEED certification during the USGBC’s infancy. Last year, it became public that the building had significantly defective concrete and design. The Salem-Keizer Transit District worked with the City of Salem to shut the building down, and it has not been occupied since.

    Last fall, Courthouse Square failed thorough forensic testing leading to a lengthy bout with a number of insurers.  The contractors and designers had been hauled into court, but the Transit District was able to settle with the architect and contractors. The only remaining party involved in the lawsuit appears to be the engineering firm, Century West Engineering. Most expert reports have pinned the responsibility for the poor design and materials on Century West’s shoulders.

    Read the full story…

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


    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    August 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Patriot-Ledger reports that insurers could pay out as much as $200 million to cover homes damaged or destroyed in the tornadoes that hit central and southern Massachusetts in June, 2011. Joseph Murphy, Commissioner of the State Division of Insurance didn?t foresee problems with insurers covering these claims. “At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any one company overexposed in that area,” he told the Patriot-Ledger.

    Insurance executives did not think the tornadoes would cause them to raise rates. Steve Chevalier, CEO of NLC Companies, said, “it’s a major event for those impacted by it, but it’s not close to a financial hit to us.”

    One insurer noted that the winter weather generated more claims; however the cumulative value of those claims was $15 million.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Martha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.

    In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.

    Read the full story…


    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    November 7, 2012 — David McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation

    With payment problems in the construction economy having accelerated over the past few years, there has been a substantial increase in mechanic’s lien activity and associated litigation. The typical mechanic’s lien claimant is a material supplier, a trade subcontractor, or even a general contractor that has not been paid by the developer/owner of the construction project. The reason for filing a mechanic’s lien claim is that it offers the prospect in many cases to make the unpaid construction professional a priority creditor, with a lien on the real estate that is superior to the construction lender.

    One of the primary rules governing a mechanic’s lien claim is that the creditor’s formal written “Notice of Intent to File a Mechanic’s Lien” (hereafter “Lien Notice”) must be (1) served on the owner of the property for which the work was done or the materials used, and (2) served at the same time on the general contractor who has handled the construction project. After the creditor has made service of the lien claim by USPS certified mail (using the green return receipt card for proof of service) or separate personal delivery of the notice to the property owner and general contractor, ten full days must pass (not including the date of mailing of the notices) before the lien notice is filed in the public records.

    After ten days have expired following the date of mailing using certified mail, or personal delivery of the notice to the property owner and the general contractor, the lien notice can be filed to make the lien valid.

    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Read the full story…


    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


    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

    Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

    The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

    Read the full story…


    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    October 28, 2011 — David M. McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation

    In Martinez v. Mike Wells Construction Company, 09CV227, Teller County District Court Judge Edward S. Colt refused to apply C.R.S. § 13-20-808 retroactively to provide coverage for the underlying construction defect allegations. According to the recitation of facts in Judge Colt’s March 2011 order, Martinez contracted with Mike Wells Construction to serve as the general contractor for the construction of a home. At that time, Mike Wells Construction was insured through ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, RRG. Disputes arose between Martinez and Mike Wells Construction, resulting in Martinez ordering it off of the project in mid-November 2007 and terminating its right to work there by letter dated November 28, 2007.

    Mike Wells, the owner of the corporation, subsequently died. Martinez sued Mike Wells Construction in July 2009 for breach of contract and various claims relating to alleged defecting workmanship. Martinez provided notice of the suit to the special administrator of the probate estate. No answer having been filed, the court entered a default judgment against Mike Wells Construction and Martinez sought to garnish Mike Wells Construction’s ProBuilders insurance policy.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McClain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com


    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Quoting one homeowner as saying that his house “can fall in the ground for all I care, I made my money,” the Tampa Bay Times looks at the issue of sinkhole claims in Florida. Homeowners “have paid off mortgages, put in pools, replaced roofs, or otherwise used money from sinkhole claims to do something besides fix sinkhole damage.

    It’s been tough for insurance companies. Citizens Property Insurance took in $32 million in premiums for sinkhole coverage in 2010, but paid out $245 million in sinkhole claims. The Tampa Bay Times notes that some of those claims come from settling problems caused by their repairs, including one settlement of $350,000 for repairs to a house worth $39,000.

    One couple, after receiving $217,000 from Citizens, sold the house to a company that bought unrepaired sinkhole homes for $190,000. The home has been sold since and remains unrepaired.

    Sometimes the preferred solution by the insurance company isn’t the cheapest either. One couple was informed that Citizens was going to spend $150,000 to have the hole filled with grout. After they settled with the insurance company, they fixed the problem by installing steel piers, at a cost of about $45,000.

    Read the full story…


    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Vertex Pharmaceuticals is poised to become the holder of Boston’s biggest commercial lease, paying $72.5 million for 1.1 million square feet on Boston’s waterfront. Vertex’s new buildings are still under construction, but the plans have spurred other development in the Fan Pier area, according to the New York Times. The Times quotes Mary A. Burke, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that the Vertex project gives “a big push” to the “momentum for economic growth.”

    The Fallon Company is building Vertex’s new laboratory and office space. They are separately planning to build a high-rise with 150 luxury condominium units. According to Joseph Fallon, the chief executive and president of the Fallon Company, there is already a waiting list of 50 buyers for the condominiums.

    Across the street from the Vertex site, a group including Morgan Stanley and Boston Global Investors is planning a 23-block mixed use project that would include 1.2 million square feet of retail space. Additionally, the New England Development and the Hanover Group is building a 356-unit apartment building at the adjacent Pier 4.

    Read the full story…