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

    Utah Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Vernon Utah

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Utah Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 4670
    1443 W 800 N Ste 103
    Orem, UT 84057
    http://www.uvhba.com

    Home Builders Association of Utah (state)
    Local # 4600
    9069 South 1300 West
    West Jordan, UT 84088
    http://www.utahhba.com

    Salt Lake Home Builders Association
    Local # 4655
    9069 S 1300 W
    West Jordan, UT 84088
    http://www.slhba.com

    Park City Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 4690
    PO Box 980850
    Park City, UT 84098
    http://www.pcahba.com

    Central Utah Home Builders Association
    Local # 4674
    PO Box 27
    Ephraim, UT 84627
    http://www.cuhba.com

    Northern Wasatch Home Builders Association
    Local # 4640
    5728 S 1475 E Suite 100
    South Ogden, UT 84403
    http://www.nwhba.org

    Cache Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 4620
    120 East 200 North
    Logan, UT 84321
    http://www.cvhba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Vernon Utah

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

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

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

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

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    The Complete and Accepted Work Doctrine and Construction Defects

    Joinder vs. Misjoinder in Colorado Construction Claims: Roche Constructors v. One Beacon

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

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

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

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

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

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

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Construction Defects Leave Animal Shelter Unusable

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

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

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    Arizona Homeowners Must Give Notice of Construction Defect Claims

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

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

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

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

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

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

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

    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine
    Corporate Profile

    VERNON UTAH CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Vernon, Utah 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 Vernon'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
    Vernon, Utah

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    December 20, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    On a certified question from the Federal District Court, the Supreme Court of Kentucky decided that an anti-assignment provision in a policy is unenforceable.Wehr Constructors v. Paducah Div. Assur. Co. of Am., 2012 Ky. LEXIS 183 (Ky. Oct. 25, 2012).

    Before building an addition to its hospital, Murray Calloway County Hospital purchased a builder's risk policy from Assurance Company of America.The policy provided, "Your rights and duties under this policy may not be transferred without Assurance's written consent . . . ." The Hospital contracted with Wehr Constructors to install concrete subsurfaces and vinyl floors in order to expand the hospital. After installation, a portion of the floors and subsurface work was damaged. The Hospital submitted a claim to Assurance for $75,000, but the claim was denied.

    Wehr sued the Hospital to recover money for its work on the construction project. In settling the case, the Hospital assigned to Wehr any claim or rights the Hospital had against Assurance.

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Concluding the “claims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owners are not claims for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ under a commercial general liability policy,” the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. In the underlying case, Custom Agri Systems, Inc. built a grain bin as a subcontractor to Younglove Construction, LLC. Younglove had been contracted by PSD Development, which withheld payment, claiming it had suffered damages due to defects in Custom Agri System’s work. Younglove filed a complaint against Custom Agri, which filed complaints against its subcontractors. Custom Agri also requested that its insurer, Westfield Insurance Company, defend and indemnify it. Westfield claimed that it had no such duty. The Ohio Supreme Court concurred.

    The decision notes that “Custom was being sued under two general theories: defective construction and consequential damages resulting from the defective construction.” Westfield argued that none of the claims were “for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence” and therefore none of the claims were covered under the CGL policy.” Further, Westfield argued that “even if the claims were for property damage caused by an occurrence, they were removed from coverage by an exclusion in the policy.”

    The case was filed in the US District Court which issued a summary judgment for Westfield. The plaintiff appealed and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

    The court noted that “all of the claims against which Westfield is being asked to defect and indemnify Custom relate to Custom’s work itself.” And so, the court concluded that they “must decide whether Custom’s alleged defective construction of and workmanship on the steel grain bin constitute property damage caused by an ‘occurrence.’” However, the court noted that under the terms of the insurance contract, an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” and the court noted that the “natural and commonly accepted meaning” of “accident” is something “unexpected, as well as unintended.”

    The Ohio Supreme Court also looked at court decisions in other places, and found that in many similar cases, courts have concluded that construction defects are not occurrences.

    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Pfeifer argues that “if the defective construction is accidental, it constitutes an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” Justice Pfeifer characterized the majority’s definition of “accidental” as “broad, covering unexpected, unintentional happenings.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Labor Department has noted that half the states and the District of Columbia saw increases in construction employment during the month of October. During the same month, twenty-three states lost construction jobs.

    The biggest gains were in North Dakota, Oklahoma, DC, Texas, and California. The biggest losses were in Georgia, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Florida. There was no change for Alabama.

    The chief executive officer of the Association of General Contractors of America, Stephen E. Sandherr, called for more infrastructure development. “Allowing water, transportation and energy networks to deteriorate will hurt construction employment and force taxpayers to spend more later, to fix broken infrastructure.”

    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


    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…


    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    August 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Boston’s Tip O’Neil Tunnel, part of the “Big Dig” project, is suffering from water leaks which has lead to millions of dollars of damage, according to an article in the Boston Globe. The report quotes Frank DePaola, the highway administrator, as likening the water leaks to “three garden hoses.” The project’s chief engineer notes that those “three garden hoses” add up to 17 million gallons a year.

    Further, the chief engineer reports notes that the leaks could compromise both safety and structural integrity. Problems have included a 110-pound light fixture that fell in February, ventilation ducts clogged with ice during the winter, and mold in utility rooms and ventilation buildings.

    Read the full story…


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

    November 18, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Application of the facts to the "your work" exclusion was the key to resolving coverage issued in Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech L.L.C., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21076 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011).

    Ergon Refining, Inc. hired Cat Tech L.L.C. to service a hydrotreating reactor. In January 2005, Cat Tech replaced certain parts in the reactor. After Cat Tech finished the job and left, Ergon noticed a high pressure drop in the reactor, forcing it to be shut down. Cat Tech returned in February 2005, removed, repaired and replaced the damaged parts, and loaded new parts. After completion, a second large pressure drop occurred during the reactor’s start-up process. The reactor was shut down until October 2005, when Ergon hired a different contractor to perform the repair work. Additional damage to the reactor was found.

    Read the full story…

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


    Discovery Ordered in Nevada Construction Defect Lawsuit

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Gemstone LVS was sued by the Manhattan Homeowners Association in Las Vegas, after which Chartis Specialty Insurance informed Gemstone that they “had no duty to defend or indemnify Gemstone under the Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy.” Gemstone “asserts that at the time the Policy was purchased, it was understood that Chartis would provide insurance coverage for a construction defect lawsuit” and now seeks discovery “to prove Chartis’ bad faith purpose in drafting an illusory Policy.”

    The opinion notes that “the Court conducted a preliminary peek at the pending motion for partial summary judgment and finds that Chartis has not made the strong showing necessary to support the requested stay.” Further, the court notes that “when ambiguity in the language of a policy exists, the court may consider not only the language of the policy but also the ‘intent of the parties, the subject matter of the policy, and the circumstances surrounding its issuance.’” The court concludes that “this type of discovery is relevant to understanding the intent of the parties, more specifically, whether it was understood that Chartis would provide insurance coverage given the construction defect lawsuit.”

    Accordingly, the court denied Chartis’ motion for stay of discovery and established a schedule for discovery, expert designations, rebuttal expert designations, and other matters related to the trial.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Bloomberg News reports that new home purchases neared a two-year high, with July sales being the strongest since April 2010. Economists polled by Bloomberg expected an annual pace of 380,000 sales, the current levels are at 373,000. Strongest sales gains were in the Northeast, with a 20 percent jump. The Midwest and Western regions had small gains, and the South saw a drop of 4.9 percent. As the Northeast’s home prices are highest and the South’s the lowest, the pattern of sales lead to a sharp increase in median sales price.

    Meanwhile, existing stocks of homes continued to deplete, reaching a record low of 38,000 completed homes on the market. In response, builders are constructing new homes at a pace not seen since April 2010, accord to the Commerce Department.

    Read the full story…


    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    California safety officials are looking into the circumstances surrounding the death of a construction worker who fell from a roof in Tiburon, California. Another worker found Gabriel Vasquez unconscious at the site. Vasquez was later pronounced dead. The State Division of Occupational Safety and Health are trying to determine how Vasquez fell.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Fifth Circuit Court has withdrawn its decision in Ewing Construction Company v. Amerisure Insurance Company, pending clarification from the Texas Supreme Court of its decision in Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. The Fifth Circuit had applied the Gilbert case in determining that a contractual liability exclusion barred coverage for faulty workmanship. The Insurance Journal reports that this decision was both applauded and criticized, with a concern noted that “an insurer would now have its pick of either the ‘your work’ exclusion or the contractual liability exclusion without the exception for subcontracted work.”

    The Fifth Circuit is now asking the Texas Supreme Court two questions to clarify Gilbert, which Brian S. Martin and Suzanne M. Patrick see as a sign that the Court has realized that it overly expanded the scope of the earlier ruling. A response is expected from the Texas Supreme Court by spring 2013.

    Read the full story…


    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    September 1, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Although the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions.  See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).

    White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.

    Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.

    Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

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


    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Seventh Circuit predicted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would adopt the continuous injury trigger for first party property loss that extends over several policy periods. Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12940 (7th Cir. June 25, 2012).

    A home inspection report performed before the Millers purchased their home showed a soft spot on the roof. The stucco's finish color was also uneven and stained. Further, some water damage was found in the study and skylights above the kitchen sink. But the report advised that the exterior walls, chimney, grass roof, flashings, floor joists/beams and columns, garage walls and floor appeared serviceable. A roof specialist determined the soft spot was not significant and could be repaired for $1,500.

    The Millers purchased a homeowner's policy from Safeco on June 30, 2005. The policy went into effect the next day when the Millers closed on the property. But the Millers did not see the policy's terms until Safeco mailed them a copy of the policy at the end of July.

    Before receiving the policy, the Millers discovered severe inner wall water leaks and significant water infiltration on three of the home's exterior walls.

    Read the full story…

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


    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Mosser Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 09-4449 (6th Cir. July 14, 2011)(unpublished), claimant project owner Port Clinton contracted with insured general contractor Mosser for the construction of a building.  Following completion, Port Clinton sued Mosser for breach of contract seeking damages because of physical injury to the project occurring after completion resulting from defective backfill material that settled improperly.

    Mosser’s CGL insurer Travelers denied a defense and Mosser filed suit against Travelers seeking a declaratory judgment. Mosser and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the supplier of the backfill material?Gerken?qualified as a subcontractor for purposes of the subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion—exclusion l.—for property damage to or arising out of Mosser’s completed work.   Mosser had purchased the backfill material from Gerken pursuant to a purchase order specifying that Gerken was to supply Mosser with an industry standard grade of backfill for use in the Port Clinton project.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


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

    January 27, 2010 — By Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP, January 27, 2010

    In the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.

    In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.

    The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.

    Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is

    Read the full story...


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

    April 27, 2011 — April 27, 2011, by CDCoverage.com

    In Evanston Ins. Co. v. D&L Masonry of Lubbock, Inc., No. 07-10-00358-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 18, 2011), insured masonry subcontractor D&L sued its CGL insurer Evanston to recover costs incurred by D&L for the replacement of window frames damaged by D&L while performing masonry work adjacent to the window frames. The trial court granted summary judgment for D&L.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Vegas.Inc reports that Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez has permitted the demolition the tower, which MGM Resorts has claimed is a safety hazard. Perini Building Co. claims that the building does not need to be demolished. CityCenter claims that repairing the building would take nearly a year longer than a demolition and cost about $200 million. Further, CityCenter assumes that the building’s reputation would cost it another $30 million.

    Subsequently, Judge Gonzalez ruled that the pattern of destructive testing would not support a claim that there were an estimated 1,400 defective items in the building. An attorney for CityCenter, Steve Morris, has suggested that they may seek more testing, impossible to do once the building is demolished. CityCenter issued a statement that “nearly every time CityCenter has chipped away concrete to review structural work at the Harmon, we have found defects.” They describe the building as “unusable.”

    Tutor Perini contends that it “remains confident that it will prevail when the issues of safety, reparability and responsibility for the issues facing the Harmon tower are considered.

    Read the full story…