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

    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

    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

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

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

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

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

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Florida trigger

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    In Re Golba: The Knaubs v. Golba and Rollison, Debtors

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

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

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

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

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

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

    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

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

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

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

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

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Architect Not Liable for Balcony’s Collapse

    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

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

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Plaintiff Not Entitled to Further Damages over Defective Decking

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

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

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

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

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Construction Defects: 2010 in Review

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

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

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Anaheim, California Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The construction industry hit a two-year high in January, with 21,000 jobs added that month. The mild winter is assumed to have helped. According to the General Contractors of America, the construction industry currently employs about 5.57 million people. This is a 21 percent gain over January 2010. Ken Simonson, the chief economist of GCA, noted that “the unemployment rate in construction is still double that of the overall economy.” He said it was not currently clear if “the recent job growth reflects a sustained pickup or merely acceleration of homebuilding and highway projects that normally halt when the ground freezes in December and January.”

    Stephen Sandherr, the chief executive officer of the GCA, said that the federal government had to make infrastructure funding a top priority. “Without adequate long-term funding for infrastructure, competitive tax rates and fewer costly regulatory hurdles, the construction industry may lose some of the jobs it gained in the last year.”

    Read the full story…


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

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Construction defect claims are now occurrences for insurance purposes in four states, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, and South Carolina, yet there are still frustrations for commercial general liability policyholders. Business Insurance describes court decisions on whether construction defect claims are covered as “incongruous,” and this drives up coverage and litigation costs. Construction firms often find they are defending themselves on two fronts, both the construction defect claim and also whether their insurance covers it.

    Frank Armstrong, the Senior Vice President and National Director of Construction Claims for Willis North America says that the problem starts with the word “occurrence,” as various state courts have different interpretations of the word. “Certain pieces of it don’t fit well, at lest according to some courts in the country, with coverage for construction defect risks.”

    Another insurance executive, Julian Ehlich, the Senior Vice President of Claims for Aon Risk Solutions’ construction services group notes that “jurisdictions differ, so policyholders don’t know what they’re going to get.”

    Read the full story…


    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    April 25, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Construction Law Hawaii

    The issue before the 11th Circuit was whether, under Florida law, a general contractor had coverage for a property damage claim limited to the defective work performed by a subcontractor, and not affecting any other portion of the project. The court found no coverage in Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5412 (11th Cir. March 15, 2012).

    Amelia Island Company contracted with Auchter Company, a general contractor, for construction of an inn and conference room. Auchter subcontracted with Register Contracting Company to install the Inn’s roof. Pursuant to the Florida Building Code, installation of the roof required that it be able to withstand 110 m.p.h. winds.

    Register completed installing the roof tiles in January 1998. Beginning in 2002, the tiles began dislodging from the roof. During the 2004 hurricane season, three hurricanes caused more tiles to come off the roof. Some of these tiles hit other tiles, cracking them.

    In 2006, the parties went to arbitration over the costs of repairs for the roof.

    Read the full story…

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


    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    As One World Trade Center rises, so does the price tag. After construction delays and cost overruns, the cost of the building at the site of the September 11 attacks has risen to $3.8 billion. Part of the expense of the skyscraper is the heavily reinforced base of the building. The elevator shafts are also heavily reinforced, all part of guarding against future terrorist attacks.

    In comparison, the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, cost only $1.5 billion, less than half the cost of One World Trade Center. As a result, the Port Authority does not see the building as being profitable in near future. In order to fund it, the agency is raising tolls on bridge and tunnel traffic.

    Currently, about the half the unfinished building is leased. Construction is expected to conclude in 2013.

    Read the full story…


    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    July 22, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A year after residents were forced to leave Dolphin Towers in Sarasota, Florida because of concrete problems, some residents are defaulting on their obligations, abandoning their units. In June, the building’s insurer, Great American, rejected a claim, arguing that the building’s problems were due to latent defects, not covered under the policy. Repair estimates, previously put at $8.2 million, have now risen to $11.5 million. If homeowners cover this cost, it would require an assessment of about $100,000 for each unit.

    About thirty owners are in arrears on dues and fees. Charlotte Ryan, the president of the Dolphin Tower board, wrote to owners, that “the board will have no choice but to lien your property and pursue foreclosure if you do nothing to bring your delinquencies up to date.” However, as homeowners default, the funding for repairs is imperiled. The board has already spent more than $500,000 on shoring up the building and hiring consultants. Their lawyers, on the other hand, are working on a contingency basis.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    On the expert advice site Avvo.com, a user asks if he can be sued for construction defects by the new owner of a building for which he served as general contractor and then owned for four years. He had construction insurance, but does not think he had construction defect insurance.

    A lawyer responding to his question says that “you could be sued.” In the event of a suit, “you would have to bring claims against all of your subcontractors.”

    Read the full story…


    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.

    The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”

    Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.

    After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.

    La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.

    La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”

    The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”

    The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.

    As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    April 5, 2011 — April 5, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    Representative Larry Taylor has introduced a bill in the Texas Legislature (HB 2818) that would further regulate the Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency (TWIA). According to Taylor, “In order to be adequately prepared for future hurricane seasons, it is imperative that TWIA be operating at maximum efficiency, that the Reserve Trust Fund be solvent and that the agency have adequate management measures in place to protect consumers and ensure that claims are paid in a timely manner. House Bill 2818 is an important step in the right direction toward restoring public confidence in TWIA.”

    HB 2818 includes measures that would create an expert panel that would advise the commissioner on how to evaluate loss from the storm, and a greater transparency of TWIA Board meetings and actions.

    In addition, the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) has placed TWIA on Administrative Oversight. According to TDI, “While under Administrative Oversight, the Department may require its prior review and approval of executive decisions, certain expenditures, and other transactions. The insurer is required to fully cooperate with the Department and provide complete and timely disclosure of all information responsive to Department requests.”

    Read the full story (Rep. Taylor’s Press Release)...

    Read the full story (Texas Department of Insurance’s Press Release)...


    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The United State District Court in California has dismissed the claims of a contractor against the United States government, on the grounds that it was not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. The origins of the case are in a related construction defect claim. The current plaintiff, Performance Contracting, Inc., did the lath and plaster work for a building for the Department of Veterans Affairs. After the building was completed, the Veterans Affairs complained to the general contractor, Wynema, Inc., of water intrusion problems.

    Wyema and Performance conducted testing and the water intrusion was found to be due to “a variety of design defects and omissions, including: 1) omission of proper window flashing; 2) inadequate waterproof membrane around the windows; 3) inadequate T-molding around the windows; 4) lack of a window sill pan for the windows; 5) lack of any backing in the window framing; 6) lack of any backing for the stucco expansion joints and seams; and 7) failure to require that a performance mock-up of the window assembly and adjacent areas be built and water tested.” Wyema filed a construction defect action against Performance and other subcontractors.

    In the current case, Performance claims that Veteran Affairs was negligent, that it “breached its duty to Plaintiff when it provided deficient plants and specifications” and “failed to properly oversee construction and inspect Project work.” The court determined that it could not hear this case, noting that “Federal Courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions.”

    Performance raised its claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The judge was not persuaded by this claim, noting that the FTCA does not apply to purported breach of the General Contract. The FTCA waives the government’s sovereign immunity in cases of “injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”

    Performance was unable to pursue its claims in the Court of Federal Claims as there was no contract between Performance and the government. However, the court noted that Performance’s inability to file suit in the Court of Federal Claims does not open up a path to the District Court. “Litigants are not guaranteed a forum in which to sue the United States.” The court further noted that “if this Court were to accept Plaintiff’s logic, non-parties to contracts, but not parties, would be free to pursue contract claims in the fora of their choosing.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    August 11, 2011 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The homeowners sued their contractor, alleging the contractor had defectively constructed and failed to complete their home.  State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Vogelgesang, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72618 (D. Haw. July 6, 2011).  The homeowners' complaint pled, among other things, damage caused by breach of contract and negligence.  State Farm agreed to defend under a reservation of rights.

    State Farm filed suit in federal court for declaratory relief.  Judge Mollway granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment.  Relying on the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal's decision in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010), Judge Mollway determined that the claims asserted in the underlying litigation arose from the contractor's alleged breach of contract.  Group Builders held that breach of contract claims based on allegations of shoddy performance were not covered under CGL policies.

    Read the full story…

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


    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Illinois Attorney General has filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that two connected firms took money from homeowners and then failed to perform the contracted work. One of the three defendants, Chris Bidigare, was an owner of agent of both Fairway Construction and Maintenance Services, LLC, and Rock Construction Management, LLC.

    In once case, according to the article on the OakPark Patch, one homeowner provided a $111,000 down payment, only to have the company cancel the job and refuse to return the money. One homeowner was told by Fairway that she should contact their insurance provider. The insurance provider told her that Fairway’s insurance had been cancelled due to non-payment.

    The suit seeks to bar the three defendants from working in home repair in Illinois.

    Read the full story…


    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    March 14, 2011 — Original article by by Melissa Brumback on March 14, 2011

    Despite foundation challenges, construction is almost complete on the expansion at University of North Carolina’s Kenan stadium. The project started with a deep foundation system from design-build contractor GeoStructures. Known as the Carolina Student-Athlete Center for Excellence, the addition was built on a parcel with a knotty mix of fill soils, subsurface boulders and varying depths to rock. To achieve uniform foundation support, GeoStructures designed a Micropile system (also known as a Mini pile system) which could be drilled into the variable ground conditions.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl law.com.


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

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

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

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

    Read the full story…

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


    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    May 19, 2011 — May 19, 2011 - Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The importance of careful preparation and documentation was the take away lesson in a Texas bad faith case, C.K. Lee v. Catlin Specialty Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19145 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2011).

    C.K. Lee owned a commercial shopping center in Houston. Catlin issued a commercial property policy to Lee. On September 12, 2008, Hurricane Ike hit and caused substantial property damage throughout the Texas Gulf Coast area. On September 24, 2008, Lee submitted a claim for damage to the roof of his shopping center to Catlin.

    Catlin hired Engle Martin to represent its interests in adjusting the claim. Engle Martin eventually adjusted over 200 Ike-related claims for Catlin.

    In November 2008, Engle Martin and Emergency Services Inc., retained by Lee, inspected Lee’s property. Engle Martin observed evidence of roof repairs that had apparently been made both before and after Hurricane Ike. Engle Martin decided it was necessary to use an infrared scan of the roof to help identify which damages, if any, were attributable to wind and which, if any, were attributable to sub par, prior repairs or natural deterioration.

    Engle Martin retained Project, Time & Cost (PT&C) to conduct the infrared inspection. PT&C’s inspection determined there was no wind-related damage to the roof and no breaches or openings created by wind. Instead, the roof had exceeded its life expectancy and was in need of replacement due to normal wear and weathering. Consequently, Catlin decided that the damage to Lee’s roof was not caused by winds from Hurricane Ike.

    Meanwhile, Lee’s contractor, Emergency Services, prepared a report estimating that the total cost of repairing the roof would be $871,187. Engle Martin’s estimate for repair of the roof was $22,864.

    Lee filed suit for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Catlin moved for summary judgment on all claims but breach of contract, arguing that because there was a bona fide dispute concerning the cause of the damages and whether they were covered under the policy, there was no evidence of bad faith or violations of the Texas Insurance Code.

    Read the full story…

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


    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A school district in northeastern Pennsylvania has retained legal services as they approach the end of a construction project. The Mid Valley School Board cited concerns about the project’s budget, but Randy Parry, Superintendent of Mid Valley schools referenced “possible litigation at the end of the project.” Mr. Parry told the Scranton Times Tribune that construction delays could be a reason for litigation.

    In addition to approving an additional $20,000 for legal representation, the board also approved $21,579 for additional project costs.

    Read the full story…


    Condo Owners Worried Despite Settlement

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    KB Homes may have settled a construction defect claim with Willowbrook Condominium Association, but some of the owners are still concerned about the repair process. The Sarasota, Florida Herald Tribune reports that one homeowner’s living room “ends with a white tarp.” He told the paper, “We feel like we’re not even owners of our own home.” A neighbor wondered “what happens when people get displaced while their homes are gutted?”

    As part of the agreement, the condominium association will be selecting a contractor to repair the problems, while the cost will be paid by KB Homes. Nevertheless, at least one owner fears for their ability to resell his home, noting that even after repairs have been made, “do you think someone’s going to come in here and buy?”

    Read the full story…


    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