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

    Washington Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (SB 5536) The legislature passed a contractor protection bill that reduces contractors' exposure to lawsuits to six years from 12, and gives builders seven "affirmative defenses" to counter defect complaints from homeowners. Claimant must provide notice no later than 45 days before filing action; within 21 days of notice of claim, "construction professional" must serve response; claimant must accept or reject inspection proposal or settlement offer within 30 days; within 14 days following inspection, construction pro must serve written offer to remedy/compromise/settle; claimant can reject all offers; statutes of limitations are tolled until 60 days after period of time during which filing of action is barred under section 3 of the act. This law applies to single-family dwellings and condos.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Mountlake Terrace Washington

    A license is required for plumbing, and electrical trades. Businesses must register with the Secretary of State.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Spokane
    Local # 4966
    5813 E 4th Ave Ste 201
    Spokane, WA 99212
    http://www.shba.com

    MBuilders Association of King & Snohomish Counties
    Local # 4955
    335 116th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98004
    http://www.masterbuildersinfo.com

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362


    Jefferson County Home Builders Association
    Local # 4947
    PO Box 1399
    Port Hadlock, WA 98339
    http://www.jeffcohomebuilders.com

    Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
    Local # 4944
    5251 Auto Ctr Way
    Bremerton, WA 98312
    http://www.kitsaphba.com

    Home Builders Association of North Central
    Local # 4957
    PO Box 2065
    Wenatchee, WA 98801
    http://www.nchba.cc

    MBuilders Association of Pierce County
    Local # 4977
    PO Box 1913 Suite 301
    Tacoma, WA 98401
    http://www.mbapierce.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Mountlake Terrace Washington

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

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

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

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

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

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

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

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

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

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

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

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

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Florida trigger

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

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

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

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

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Colorado Court of Appeals Rejects Retroactive Application of C.R.S. § 13-20-808.

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

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

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

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Ninety-Day Extension Denied to KB Home in Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

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

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

    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

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

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Ohio Casualty’s and Beazer’s Motions were Granted in Part, and Denied in Part

    Plans Go High Tech

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    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

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Know the Minnesota Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases
    Corporate Profile

    MOUNTLAKE TERRACE WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

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

    Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

    Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

    Read the full story...


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

    August 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Alaska Supreme Court found that in the case of Khalsa v. Chose, Ms. Khalsa? failure to cooperate with the courts has obligated them to dismiss her claims against Mr. Chose. Ms. Khalsa bought a home kit from Mandala Custom Homes of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Chose, one of the owners of Mandala was paid by Ms. Khalsa to supervise assembly in Fairbanks. After construction, the roof developed leaks. Ms. Khalsa stated that when climbing a ladder to inspect a skylight leak, she fell and injured herself.

    During the subsequent suit, Khalsa proved uncooperative. She skipped a pretrial conference. She attended a hearing that set discovery deadlines but then did not comply with discovery, including her failure to provide medical records documenting her injuries. She eventually said that she would only be able to travel from Arizona to Alaska if the defendants paid for her and her caretaker?s expenses.

    When finally deposed, Khalsa terminated the deposition after five minutes, alleging the deposition was “intentionally designed to cause [her] to endure further emotional distress, due to the psychological trauma . . . that was caused or contributed to by the defendants.”

    Eventually, the lower court sanctioned her twice. In July, 2008, the court concluded that her failure to provide medical records required dismissal of her injury lawsuit. In October of that year, the court dismissed all remaining claims due to her “pattern of excuses and long delays in providing information for discovery culminating in her refusal to participate in her deposition by the defendants.” Further, Khalsa has argued that the trial court displayed “prejudice and bias toward the pro se plaintiff.”

    The Alaska Supreme Court rejected all of Ms. Khalsa?s claims, dismissing her case. They did, however, note that she has thirty days to file an appeal.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    David Paterson, who succeeded Eliot Spitzer as Governor of New York, has started a new venture after leaving the Governor’s office in construction integrity monitoring. WNYC reports that Paterson will be the majority owner of Icon Compliance Services, LLC, which will both conduct investigations and work with law enforcement officials. Paterson says that in government projects “often concessions are made for political reasons in the public sector and then you never really get a product that you paid for.”

    Paterson will be working with a former vice president of Bovis Construction, Brian Aryai, who is also a former U.S. Treasury Agent. Aryai said that “it is astounding that some of the fraud that has come to the surface in the recent past,” and describes it as “almost laughable they were not detected.” Aryai tipped federal prosecutors that Bovis had been over billing on projects for at least a decade.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The downtown Indianapolis area is the site of about 85 major building projects that are from groundbreaking to just complete. The Indianapolis Star reports that the cumulative worth of the projects is about $3 billion, a level of construction that Indianapolis has seen only once before.

    About thirty of the projects are residential. The main commercial project is a $754 million hospital building. The boom in downtown Indianapolis is not matched elsewhere, with the Indianapolis Star reporting that in the rest of Central Indiana, construction has slowed.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    There was a significant increase in the number of open construction jobs during October, according to a report for the National Association of Home Builders. Working from preliminary data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NAHB said that the number of open positions reached “levels and rates last seen in 2007.” As the data is still preliminary, the NAHB noted that the conclusions should be taken with caution.

    While there was a spike in job openings, the hiring of people to fill these positions hasn’t caught up with it, and there was a small decline in hires. But to return to the good news, there was also a drop in layoffs in that same period.

    Through October, about 8,000 people have been hired in the construction sector. The NAHB notes that this does not correspond with the recent increases with home construction. They suggest that “it may be the case that startups in the home building and remodeling sectors are being missed by the establishment survey.” Another possibility they raise is that already-employed construction workers are simply working more hours.

    Read the full story…


    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Hawaii State Senate voted down Senate Bill 2692. Had it been passed, the State Building Code Council would have been abolished and building codes would have become the responsibility of county governments. The bill was opposed by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Their director of code development, Wanda Edwards said that the bill “would have undermined key components that are essential to an effective state building code regime.”

    Read the full story…


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

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly twenty tons of steel fell forty stories at the World Trade Center site on February 16. One person was checked by medical personnel. One person who works in the Financial District said it was “almost like thunder.” Frank Pensabene, one of the ironworkers on the site said that after “loud boom,” “all hell broke loose.” The steel beams and cables fell onto a flatbed truck, which was not occupied at the time.

    Read the full story…


    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    A U.S. District Court in Washington found coverage in what it described as a text book study of the efficient proximate cause rule. Hiller v. Allstate Pro. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84862 (E.D. Wash. June 19, 2012).

    The Hillers purchased a newly constructed home in December 2006. They also purchased an all-risk homeowner's policy from Allstate.

    In July 2010, the Hillers discovered that the carpet in the basement of the residence was saturated with water. Allstate was immediately notified. Hiller began an investigation to attempt to determine the source of the water. He poured water into a downspout drain at the northwest corner of the residence. This caused water to leak into the northwest corner of the home's basement.

    An area was excavated around the northwest downspout drain. The end of the drain pipe was partially blocked by rocks and had been wrapped with fabric landscaping material. Further, a “T” pipe installed at the foot of the drain was directing water toward the house's concrete foundation. Hiller notified Allstate that the problems with the drain was due to construction defects and the system was designed to fail.

    Allstate denied the claim. Based upon Hiller's information, coverage was excluded under the policy's surface water, subsurface water, inherent vice, and latent defect exclusions.

    Read the full story…

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


    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    July 5, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).

    Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.

    The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.

    Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.

    Read the full story…

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


    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    September 30, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

    Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.

    Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.

    On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.

    Read the full story…

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


    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Grout, which was used to protect the steel support cables of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, may lead to problems instead. The Baltimore Sun reports that the Federal Highway Administration is looking at three dozen bridges in twenty-one states that were built with defective grout. The grout contains high levels of chlorides, which can lead to corrosion. The collapse of pedestrian walkway in Concord, North Carolina was attributed to chloride contamination in the grout.

    The grout, SikaGrout 300PT, was advertised as "non-corrosive, does not contain chlorides," but later testing showed that it contained levels that exceeded limits by 400 percent. Throughout the country, about 16 million pounds of this were used. Sika Corp. suspended production of the grout in 2010. If repairs need to be made, it is unclear who will pay.

    Read the full story…


    Water Is the Enemy

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    So says Melissa Mitchell, writing in the blog of Community Association Consultants. She cites the nightmare scenario of “an unseen presence lurking behind the walls.” Not a horror movie, but water intrusion, which she notes can cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. Eric Hoff, of Western Architectural, is quoted that “it only takes a hole one-eighth inch diameter in a building’s exterior to allow the intrusion of 35 gallons of water over twelve months.” Destructive testing on a building in in the Pacific Northwest revealed that water intrusion had lead to structural failure of the building. The wet wood had made a home for carpenter ants. Repairs exceeded $100,000.

    Mitchell notes that “deferred maintenance can be costly” and cites the importance of preventative maintenance or the development of a maintenance plan. She concludes that “if you own or are responsible for maintaining a condominium complex, apartment building or commercial structure, it’s simply good business sense to have a building envelope assessment conducted by experts in the field.”

    Read the full story…


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

    May 9, 2011 — May 9, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

    First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

    The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

    Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

    The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal in a San Diego construction defect case. In Smith v. Walters Group, Christopher and Maud Smith sued The Walters Group, a real estate developer, and Galen C. Pavelko, Inc, the builder of their home. Walters had bought five lots and hired Pavelko to build houses on them, selling one of these homes to the Smiths. “After moving in, the Smiths noticed a strong and obnoxious odor permeating the house.” The Smiths sued but were ordered to arbitrate instead, pursuant to a clause in the purchase contract. The Smiths were awarded $1.5 million at arbitration.

    Walters requested that the arbitration remain open to determine if Walters was entitled to a setoff for settlements from defendants not involved in the arbitration. During this time, Pavelko made a settlement with the Smiths, which the court found was in good faith. At the same time, the arbitrator “reached the opposite conclusion.” The arbitrator concluded that “only settlements made ‘in good faith before verdict or judgment’ qualified for setoff.”

    Walters moved that the trial court “‘correct’ the award,” but the trial court declined to do so and confirmed the award. In the appeal, Walters raised the issue of “whether Pavelko’s settlement occurred ‘before verdict or judgment.’” The appeals court dismissed the appeal, noting that “Walters would not be entitled to a $500,000 setoff if we reversed the trial court’s order determining the Smith-Pavelko settlement was made in good faith because Pavelko’s $500,000 payment was expressly conditioned on such an order.” They add that “were we to reverse the trial court’s order, Pavelko would have no obligation to pay the Smiths the $500,000.” This would then “deprive Walters of the corresponding statutory right to a setoff.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    October 28, 2011 — Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. - Corporate Offices

    Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., one of the nation’s leading construction forensics firms is pleased to announce the expansion of the company’s civil and structural engineering capabilities.

    JERRY M. MILES, PE - Mr. Miles has been a licensed civil engineer in California since 1987 and has served as the lead civil engineer on many projects in several states. His experience includes contract administration services as the owner’s representative on a variety of projects including mastered planned communities, residential subdivisions, shopping centers and multi-family residential projects. He has also been involved in providing water quality management plans and storm water pollution prevention plans. Mr. Miles has also served on the Town of Apple Valley’s Building Department Dispute Resolution Board.

    His more than 26 years of engineering experience includes geotechnical evaluations, structural design of wood-framed, masonry, and concrete tilt-up buildings, small and large subdivision engineering construction/improvements plans, hydrology/hydraulic reports and design, forensic investigation and expert witness testimony. Mr. Miles has qualified as an expert in numerous jurisdictions and Federal court. He has been called upon to provide deposition testimony on more than twenty-five occasions and has successfully testified at arbitration and trial. Click here to view Mr. Miles’ Current CV.

    MATTHEW J. STIEFEL, PE - With a background that spans a multitude of design and new construction projects to catastrophic claims analysis, Mr. Stiefel brings a unique set of credentials and experience to the construction experts group at Bert L. Howe & Associates. Mr. Stiefel has more than 13 years’ experience in civil, structural, and geotechnical engineering; providing design and construction consulting services on a variety of projects that include multi-family and single family dwellings, commercial buildings, transportation facilities, industrial facilities, storm drain channels, water and wastewater pipelines. His engineering experience encompasses multiple disciplines of civil engineering including geotechnical design and evaluation, foundation design, structural design of wood-framed buildings, preparation of grading plans and site drainage analysis. He has provided cause and origin analysis for insurance adjusters on many residential and commercial sites related to issues involving moisture intrusion and mold, foundation movement, site drainage, soil movement, wind damage, and other various losses. Click here to view Mr. Stiefel’s Current CV.


    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    As of May, only 61 residential construction permits have been issues in Roanoke County, Virginia, leaving officials doubtful that this year will meet last year’s mark of 179 permits. Residential construction was at its highest in the county in 2004. The worst year since then was 2009, when the county issued 143 permits. The county is in the western end of the state, near the border with West Virginia, and far from the D.C. metropolitan area.

    Arnold Covey, the Director of Community Development for the county said that “it may be until 2014 before we really see a difference. The article by WDBJ7.com notes that a “key part” of the county budget comes from real estate.

    Read the full story…


    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    David Thamann, writing in Property Casualty 360, argues that current actions by legislatures on insurance coverage amount to “legislative interference or overreach.” He notes that under current Colorado law, “a court shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage — including damage to the work itself or other work — is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured.” He argues that here legislators are stepping into the role of the courts. “Insureds and insurers are not always going to be pleased with a court ruling, but that is the system we have.”

    Read the full story…


    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.

    According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.

    Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

    Read the full story…