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

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Tulare/Kings Ctys
    Local # 0505
    PO Box 3930
    Visalia, CA 93278
    http://www.biatk.com

    Building Industry Association of Fresno/Madera Counties
    Local # 0516
    1530 E. Shaw Ave #113
    Fresno, CA 93710
    http://www.biafm.org

    Building Industry Association of Fresno/Madera Counties - Madera Chapter
    Local # 0516
    1530 E. Shaw Ave Ste 113
    Fresno, CA 93710
    http://www.biasjv.org

    Home Builders Association of Kern County
    Local # 0510
    PO Box 21118
    Bakersfield, CA 93390
    http://www.kernbia.com

    Home Builders Association of the Central Coast
    Local # 0570
    PO Box 748
    San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
    http://www.hbacc.org

    Building Industry Association of the Bay Area - Southern Division
    Local # 0538
    675 N 1st St Suite 620
    San Jose, CA 95112


    Building Industry Association of Central California
    Local # 0536
    900 H St Ste E2
    Modesto, CA 95354
    http://www.biacc.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Shoshone California

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

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

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

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

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    The Complete and Accepted Work Doctrine and Construction Defects

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

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

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

    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    Water District Denied New Trial in Construction Defect Claim

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

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

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

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

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

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

    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

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    When is a Construction Project truly “Complete”? That depends. (law note)

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

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

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

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

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

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

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

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

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence
    Corporate Profile

    SHOSHONE CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Shoshone, California Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Shoshone'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
    Shoshone, California

    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


    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Some insurers in Hawaii have made it clear that they will be covering construction defects, despite a court ruling concluding that defects are not occurrences, under Hawaii law. The case, heard by Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals found that “breach-of-contract claims based on allegations of shoddy performance are not covered under CGL policies and that tort-based claims derivative of such breach of contract claims also are not covered.”

    Writing in Business Insider, Michael Bradford notes that the case, Group Builders Inc. and Tradewind Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Admiral Insurance Co., involved improperly installed insulation at the Hilton Hawaiian Village’s Kalia Tower. Hilton was forced to close 21 floors due to extensive mold in guest rooms. Although the court did recognize this property damage, they did not feel it triggered insurance coverage, noting that if disputes over the quality of work were covered, CGL policies would become professional liability policies or performance bonds.

    One critic of the decision, Warren C. Perkins, the risk manager at Boh Bros. Construction of New Orleans, noted that under the decision, “it doesn’t matter what the policy says and there is no need to investigate the policy wording.”

    Read the full story…


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

    March 5, 2011 — By CDCoverage.com, March 5, 2011

    In American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway Development Co., Inc., No. S10G0521 (Ga. March 7, 2011), insured plumbing subcontractor Whisnant was sued by general contractor Hathaway seeking damages for costs incurred by Hathaway in repairing damage to property other than Whisnant’s plumbing work resulting from Whisnant’s negligently performed plumbing work on three separate projects. On one project, Whisnant installed a pipe smaller

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


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

    April 20, 2011 — April 20, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.

    When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.

    The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.

    The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”

    In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”

    Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    Read the full story…


    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Clay Olson looks back to a 1991 Carolina case, Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company. The court concluded in that case that “a plaintiff in South Carolina may recover only if his/her negligence does not exceed that of the defendant’s and amount of plaintiff’s recovery shall be reduced in proportion to amount of his or her negligence; if there is more than one defendant, plaintiff’s negligence shall be compared to combined negligence of all defendants.” In 2005, he reports, as part of tort reform in South Carolina, the legislature further addressed this.

    He then suggests a possible outcome of this is that negligent contractors may be able to shift some of the blame (and cost of the settlement) to other defendants who may not be to blame. He offers a scenario in which a contractor is sued for construction defects and a jury has to allocate responsibility for indivisible damage. “A jury need only find the two subcontractors to have each contributed 15% of the indivisible damage.” He adds in another 15% for claims against the architect. Minor blame is given to the manufacturers, and suddenly the negligent contractor is paying less than 50% of the total settlement.

    He notes that the previous system in place also had its problems, but notes that this one may not be “fair and equitable.”

    Read the full story…


    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Broad Sustainable Building has leapfrogged in China’s construction boom by building a thirty-story hotel in just fifteen days in the city of Changsha. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, most of the building was prefabricated, but most prefabricated buildings require a longer time for assembly. Broad claimed that it cut no corners on safety. However, Zhang Li, a Beijing architect, told the Times that “incredible speed also means incredible risk.”

    At the completion date, the interior was still partially finished. Some rooms were furnished, while others weren’t quite so ready. The hotel will be used to house clients who are visiting Broad and some of its employees.

    Broad called their process “the most profound innovation in human history” and predicted that soon a third of new buildings worldwide would be constructed this way. The company anticipates using the same process to build taller buildings, with hopes of eventually constructing a 150-story building.

    China is currently undergoing a building boom which Zhang attributed to a desire to catch up to the developed world. As a result of this boom, he noted that building inspections are often skipped in China to speed up building.

    Read the full story…


    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    July 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A new law in South Carolina, H 3375, fixes a loophole in that state’s statute of repose. State law puts a cap of eight years on construction defects, but the 2008 law that set that limit had a loophole that would allow for construction defect claims to start thirteen years after construction. The law also provides a cap on punitive damages.

    The measure was backed by the Carolinas Association of General Contractors. Their spokesperson said that the legislation “increases our state’s ability to be economically competitive and helps protect our members from frivolous lawsuits.”

    Read the full story…

    Read South Carolina H 3375…


    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The San Bernardino office of the California District Attorney is partnering with the California Contractor’s State License Board to check if subcontractors are holding the required workers compensation insurance. The High Desert Daily Press reports that the process of checking at sites has been going on for several months.

    Investigators visit sites and ask supervisors to provide a list of subcontractors which the state then checks for compliance. One worker was quoted that insurance inspections were so rare that he had never seen one before, despite 20 years in construction.

    On one day, investigators in two teams visited fourteen construction sites and reviewed the insurance status of twenty-two firms. Three were found out of compliance and stop work orders were issued.

    Read the full story…


    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    June 10, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the court’s opinion


    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The National Association of Home Builders reports that spending on private homes was up three percent in October 2012, bringing it to a four-year high. This was part of a trend in which fourteen of the last fifteen months have seen increases in spending on residential construction. Likewise, multifamily residences have seen thirteen months of increased spending, putting it 82% higher than its low, two years ago. ¬?In addition to new homes, remodeling is also up, reaching its highest point in five years.

    Read the full story…


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

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In April 2012, Governor Rick Scott signed into law House Bill 1013, despite lobbying from homeowner and condominium associations among others. The law was in response to a case in which the court had found that implied warranties covered external subdivision improvements. Prior to the court decision, these were not thought to be covered.

    According to an article in the Martindale-Hubble Legal Library, under the new law, road and drainage improvements will not be included implied warranty of a new home. The law took effect on July 1.

    Read the full story…


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

    April 25, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Writing in Oregon’s Daily Journal of Commerce, David Anderson looks at the aftermath of the case Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc. In that case, Anderson notes that “the homeowners hired a contractor to build their house, and subsequently discovered extensive water damage” “after expiration of the time to sue for breach of contract.” The homeowners claimed negligence. Oregon’s Supreme Court concluded that “homeowners only had to prove that the contractor negligently caused reasonably foreseeable harm to the homeowner’s property.”

    Anderson views this decision as leading to two risks for contractors. “First, contractors can be held liable in tort for breaching building code standards; second, they can be held liable for violating the often-difficult-to-define ‘reasonable care’ standard.” But here, “contract can be king.” The Oregon Supreme Court noted that the contractor “could have avoided exposure to the general ‘reasonable care’ standard by more carefully defining its obligations in the original construction contract.”

    He notes that contractors who fail to define their obligations or use generic definitions “may be exposing themselves to a more vague scope of liability.”

    Read the full story…


    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.

    The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.

    The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.

    The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”

    The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    May 20, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) reports that Representatives Gary Miller (CA), Brad Miller (NC) and twenty-nine cosponsors have put forth a bill with bipartisan support to “address the severe credit crunch for acquisition, development, and construction (AD&C) financing.” They report in addition to more than 1.4 million construction workers who have been “idled since 2006,” the housing slump has cost 3 million jobs and $145 million in wages.

    NAHB reports that they worked closely with lawmakers on the bill. The association had members meet with legislators both in D.C. and in their home districts. They state that HR 1755 would help homebuilders “find the credit they need to move forward with new or existing projects.”

    The bill would allow lenders to use the value upon completion when assessing loan collateral and ban the use of foreclosed or distressed sale properties in assessing values of projects. The would bill would also lessen restrictions by banking regulators, which the lead sponsors said “have hindered federal and state chartered banks and thrifts’ ability to make and maintain loans to qualified small home builders that have viable projects.”

    The NAHB is urging members of Congress to cosponsor the bill and is urging the Senate to introduce a companion bill.

    Read the full story…

    Read HR 1755


    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Northhampton County, Pennsylvania is suing a contractor who resurfaced a parking garage in 2009. According to the Express-Times, three years later, the surface is cracked and the county is seeking $700,000 for repairs. Additionally, they have withheld $44,000 of the $2.2 million contract because of the problems. John Stoffa, Northampton County Executive, says that the garage is stable, but not up to safety standards.

    Read the full story…


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

    August 4, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Dragas Management Corp. v. Hanover Insurance Co., No. 2:10cv547 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), claimant residential home general contractor and developer DMC filed for arbitration against insured drywall supply and install subcontractor Porter-Blaine seeking damages for (1) the replacement of defective Chinese drywall, and (2) the repair of resulting property to other components of the DMC homes and homeowners’ personal property in seventy-four homes. Porter-Blaine’s CGL insurer Citizens and excess insurer Hanover defended Porter-Blaine in the DMC arbitration.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    May 19, 2011 — May 16, 2011 - CDJ Staff

    WSMV, Nashville reports that the ceiling collapse in a Franklin, Tennessee Kohl’s was attributed to a construction defect by fire officials. The officials noted that the ceiling was renovated at the time. No injuries were reported.

    The report notes that “inspectors were supposed to look at the renovations next week, but fire officials said that will have to be delayed until another time.”

    Read the full story…