BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing Anaheim California concrete tilt-up Anaheim California condominium Anaheim California custom home Anaheim California mid-rise construction Anaheim California condominiums Anaheim California housing Anaheim California office building Anaheim California industrial building Anaheim California production housing Anaheim California casino resort Anaheim California hospital construction Anaheim California high-rise construction Anaheim California parking structure Anaheim California retail construction Anaheim California tract home Anaheim California Subterranean parking Anaheim California structural steel construction Anaheim California landscaping construction Anaheim California institutional building Anaheim California low-income housing Anaheim California Medical building Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Changes To Indemnification Statute Are Here! Say Hello To Defense Duties

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    New Construction Laws, New Forms in California

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

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

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    District Court’s Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Timing of Insured’s SIR Payment Has No Effect on Non-Participating Insurer’s Equitable Contribution to Co-Insurer

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

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

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

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

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

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

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

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

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Destruction of Construction Defect Evidence Leads to Sanctions against Plaintiff

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

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

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

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

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

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

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

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

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    Construction Defects Leave Animal Shelter Unusable

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

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

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

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

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

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

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Anaheim, California Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Anaheim's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Associated Builders and Contractors released their analysis of construction work under contract and found that there was no increase in construction backlog from the second quarter of 2011. There was still improvement, however, over 2010, as the third quarter backlog is 16.3 percent higher than that of a year ago.

    The current backlog is 8.1 months, which according to Anirban Basu, the chief economist of the ABC, “is consistent with flat construction spending.” He noted that less than 8 months indicated a decline.

    Read the full story…


    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Colorado Dense Lawyers Association will be holding their 2012 Annual Conference from July 26 through the 28, in Crested Butte, Colorado. The CDLA provides benefits to its member defense trial lawyers, including educational and information resources.

    David McLain of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC will be joining in a discussion with William J. McConnell, PE of Vertex Engineering on Saturday, July 28. Their topic will be common building code violations alleged in construction defect cases and how to respond to these allegations.

    Read the full story…


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

    October 23, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The issue faced by the Minnesota Supreme Court was whether the insurer had a duty to disclose the insured's interest in obtaining a written explanation of an arbitration award that identified the claims of recovery and the portions of the award attributable to each. Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 LEXIS Minn. 404 (Minn. Sup. Ct., Aug. 22, 2012).

    Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. ("RDI") built an addition for the homeowners and installed windows in the original part of the house. After construction began, the homeowners also asked RDI to fix the master bedroom window in the original part of the house.

    After completion of the project, the house sustained storm damage.

    Read the full story…

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


    Colorado “occurrence”

    January 6, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

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

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California construction industry sees Senate Bill 863 as a needed help to legitimate construction businesses. The bill introduces regulations that will help shut down fraudulent contractors and help reduce workers’ compensation fraud. John Upshaw of the Independent Roofing Contractors of California described the revenue lost to California and other states as “phenomenal,” saying that “we need to continue the coordinated efforts if we are to see true workers’ compensation reform.”

    Read the full story…


    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    July 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Coverage of the ongoing litigation concerning the Harmon Hotel continues to proliferate. Architectural Record and a number of other news outlets continue to provide additional details and coverage of the matter. Chief among the conditions alleged are improperly installed reinforcing steel inside link beams on 15 floors. MGM Claims that the conditions amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, while Perini (the builder) indicated in a July 12th statement that the buildings problems are related to the design, and the they are “fixable.”

    There is significant speculation that MGM Resorts International isn’t interested in repairing the hotel due to a glut of hotel rooms attendant to the troubled economy. In a statement Tuesday Perini reportedly stated that “Repairing and opening the Harmon would only create a greater glut of unused hotel rooms for MGM,” “If market conditions were better and MGM found that demand existed for the Harmon hotel rooms, MGM would not be claiming that the Harmon is unstable.”

    MGM asserts that Perini failed to ”properly construct” the project. Clark County’s Department of Development Services has reportedly asked MGM to provide a plan to fix the project by August 15th.

    The Harmon is part of the $8.5 billion CityCenter project that opened in the fourth quarter of 2009 and is jointly owned by MGM Resorts and Dubai World.

    Prior reports indicated that the owner (MGM) had considered razing the entire project. The future of the project remains uncertain.


    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    August 16, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The court determined the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous and found coverage for the home owners in Platek v. Town of Hamburg, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. App. Div. July 6, 2012).

    The burst of a water main caused water damage to the insureds' basement. Allstate disclaimed coverage under exclusion 4 for losses caused by "[w]ater . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source . . . [,] includ[ing] water . . . which exerts pressure on or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residence premises."

    Another policy provision covered "sudden and accidental direct physical loss caused by fire, explosion or theft resulting from item []. . . 4 . . . ." Plaintiffs argued that this exception applied because their claimed loss was caused by an "explosion" of the water main.

    Read the full story…

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


    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    July 8, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    A select group of Senators have launched a marketing campaign for the BUILD Act. If this is the first you are hearing about the BUILD Act, do not fret. The Act still has a long way to go, but if successful it would bring a national infrastructure bank.

    I have been fascinated with the concept of a national infrastructure bank for quite some time. The idea has been around since the Clinton years ? and perhaps beyond. The Act’s purpose is to create a national bank (American Infrastructure Financing Authority) to provide loans and loan guarantees to encourage private investment in upgrading America’s infrastructure. For a number of years, we have seen similar legislation float around Congress. But, none of those initiatives have gained as much traction as BUILD.

    Read the full story…

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


    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    July 6, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Last November, mold problems were discovered at the Siena Condominiums in Montclair, New Jersey, which had been described by their developers as “an enclave of luxury in an urban village setting.” The owners have filed a lawsuit against Pinnacle Companies, Kohl Parnters, and Herod Development, seeking “compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, and for such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”

    According to the article on Baristanet.com, an engineering report commissioned by the condominium association revealed many problems, including improperly installed windows and siding. The developers commissioned two engineering reports themselves and found evidence of water pounding on the roof. Despite these reports and repeated promises, no repairs have been made.

    Read the full story…


    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

    Read the full story…


    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    August 11, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    It’s been a while since I discussed the importance of safety. But, a recent article on ENR.com compelled this brief article. Don’t shortcut safety — you could be facing serious criminal repercussions.

    A New York crane company owner and one of his employees are each facing a second-degree manslaughter charge for the death of two construction workers.  The charges stem from the collapse of a crane in New York City. The district attorney determined that the crane owner cut a few corners to reduce its operation costs, significantly sacrificing safety.

    Another example was the 2010 trial of another New York crane operator who was charged with manslaughter. In that case, the criminal charges failed to stick, but an administrative judge found that the contractor used a damaged sling to support the steel collar binding the tower-crane mast to the 18th floor of a high-rise building being constructed. The company also used four slings instead of the eight, as specified by the crane manufacturer; improperly attached the slings and failed to pad or soften them.

    Read the full story…

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


    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    December 9, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Although the insureds disclosed flooding problems in the basement, the buyers purchased their home. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. McInerney, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1130 (Ill Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011). In a supplemental disclosure, the insureds reported that during heavy rains light seepage occurred in the basement.

    After moving in, the buyers experienced significant water infiltration and flooding in the basement. The buyers and their children also began to experience mold-related illnesses.

    The buyers sued for rescission of the contract or, in the alternative, damages. They alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In the claim for negligent misrepresentation, the buyers alleged that the insureds carelessly omitted the fact that there were material defects in the basement and foundation when they should have known of such defects.

    Read the full story…

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


    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    November 18, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The court determined that the Faulty Workmanship Exclusion only barred coverage for damages arising from problems with the property under construction itself and not to losses incurred to correct damage from accidents during construction. See 1756 First Associates, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117100 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2011).

    A tower crane collapsed at the construction site, causing damage. First Associates tendered the claim to its insurer, Continental. Continental reimbursed First Associates for certain costs arising from damage to and cleanup of the construction site and building stemming from the crane collapse. Continental refused, however, to reimburse First Associates for costs associated with construction delays resulting from the collapse.

    Read the full story…

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


    District Court’s Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In the case, TCD, Inc. v American Family Mutual Insurance Company, the district court’s summary judgment was in favor of the defendant. In response, the Plaintiff, TCD, appealed “on the ground that the insurance company had no duty to defend TCD under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy.” The appeals court affirmed the decision.

    The appeals ruling provides a brief history of the case: “This case arises out of a construction project in Frisco, Colorado. The developer, Frisco Gateway Center, LLC (Gateway), entered into a contract with TCD, the general contractor, to construct a building. TCD entered into a subcontract with Petra Roofing and Remodeling Company (Petra) to install the roof on the building. The subcontract required Petra to "indemnify, hold harmless, and defend" TCD against claims arising out of or resulting from the performance of Petra’s work on the project. The subcontract also required Petra to name TCD as an additional insured on its CGL policy in connection with Petra’s work under the subcontract.”

    Furthermore, “TCD initiated this case against Petra and the insurance company, asserting claims for declaratory judgment, breach of insurance contract, breach of contract, and negligence. The district court entered a default judgment against Petra, and both the remaining parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the entirety of the action, in favor of the insurance company, concluding that the counterclaims asserted by Gateway against TCD did not give rise to an obligation to defend or indemnify under the CGL policy.”

    The appeals court rejected each contention made by TCD in turn. First, “TCD contend[ed] that Gateway’s counterclaims constitute[d] an allegation of ‘property damage,’ which is covered under the CGL policy.” The appeals court disagreed. Next, “TCD argue[d] that [the court] should broaden or extend the complaint rule, also called the ‘four corners’ rule, and allow it to offer evidence outside of the counterclaims to determine the insurance company’s duty to defend in this case.” The appeals court was not persuaded by TCD’s argument.

    The judgment was affirmed. Judge Roman and Judge Miller concur.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Attempts to build “green,” reducing energy costs and increasing the use of sustainable building materials, may lead to more lawsuits, according to a report issued by the British Columbia Construction Association. The report warned those who were going to build green look into the implications. The report looked at the result of green building practices and requirements adopted in the United States.

    The report warns that “the use of novel, less harmful building material or new construction techniques may give rise to liability due to: contractor inexperience with installation; lack of long-term evaluation of green materials; lack of understanding of how new building materials may impact existing traditional building systems; or warranties provided unintentionally about the durability or effectiveness of unproven materials or techniques.”

    Manley McLachlan, president of the BCAA noted that they are aware of “legal action around the performance of the buildings,” noting that while fast-growing trees help toward LEED certification, their wood is more prone to mold. He also felt that low-VOC paints needed more testing to prove their durability as exterior finishes.

    Read the full story…


    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    May 20, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    PR Newswire reports that the Carolinas Associated General Contractors (CAGC) have successfully persuaded the South Carolina legislature to pass a bill restoring commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. Governor Nikki Hartley signed the legislation on May 17.

    A South Carolina Supreme Court decision given on January 7, 2011, had ended commercial general liability coverage in the state. Senate Bill 431 addressed this decision, restoring the ability of home builders to obtain CGL coverage.

    PR Newswire quotes South Carolina homebuilder, Allen Amsler: “We have seen a lot of legislation with substantial impact to our business over the years. However, I would place this in the same level of importance with the original tort reform legislation. The effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling could have been catastrophic to our industry in South Carolina had it not been for this bill. Thanks to all those in the House, Senate and the Governor’s office who assisted us.”

    Read the full story…


    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    April 26, 2011 — April 26, 2011 by Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq. of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak, P.C. in the HindemanSanchez blog

    A recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., 230 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2010), considerably shortens the time limit for bringing many construction defect lawsuits. Homeowners and homeowner associations risk losing the right to seek reimbursement from builders, developers and other construction professionals unless they carefully and quickly act upon discovery of evidence of any potential construction defect.

    The Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims
    Colorado’s construction defect statute of limitations limits the time for homeowners and homeowners associations to bring lawsuits for construction defects against “construction professionals,” including developers, general contractors, builders, engineers, architects, other design professionals, inspectors and subcontractors. The statute requires homeowners and associations to file suit within two years “after the claim for relief arises.” A claim for relief “arises” when a homeowner or association discovers or reasonably should have discovered the physical manifestation of a construction defect.

    The two-year time limitation applies to each construction defect separately, and will begin to run upon the appearance of a “manifestation” of a construction defect (which may include, for example, a condition as simple as a roof leak or drywall cracks), even if the homeowner or association does not know the cause of the apparent problem.

    The Smith Opinion and its Effect on the Statute of Limitations
    In Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., the plaintiff homeowner, Mrs. Smith, slipped on ice that had accumulated on her sidewalk because of a leaking gutter and suffered injury. When she first noticed the leak, she reported it to her property manager, who reported it to the builder. The builder attempted to repair the gutter, unbeknownst to Mrs. Smith, and she did not notice further problems until approximately one year after she first observed the leak, when she fell and suffered serious injury. She sued the builder within two years of her injury, but nearly three years after she first learned of the leak.

    The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed Mrs. Smith’s claims as untimely and held that under the construction defect statute of limitations, the two-year period for suing for injuries due to construction defects begins when the homeowner first observes the physical manifestation of the defect, even if the resulting injury has not yet occurred. The court acknowledged that this ruling could result in “unfair results,” especially if a serious and unforeseeable injury occurs more than two years after the first time the homeowner noticed the problem, and as a result the victim is unable to seek redress from those responsible for the defect.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq. of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak, P.C., and they can be contacted through their web site.