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

    Missouri Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (SB168/HB573) Missouri’s NOR law requires homeowners to provide notice of an alleged construction defect before filing a lawsuit. The contractor has the option to offer to inspect the defect, repair the defect, offer a settlement or dispute the claim. The law places deadlines on the contractor to serve notice on each subcontractor (14 days) and provide a written response to the claimant (14 days). HB1166 is a similar law that addresses Notice of Repair for Homeowner Associations.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Mora Missouri

    Licensing is done at the city level. Contractors must register to do business with the Secretary of State.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Central Missouri
    Local # 2605
    1420 Creek Trail Dr
    Jefferson City, MO 65109
    http://www.hbacentralmo.com

    Home Builders Association of St. Louis and Eastern Missouri
    Local # 2690
    10104 Old Olive Street Rd
    Saint Louis, MO 63141
    http://www.stlhba.com

    Home Builders Association of Columbia
    Local # 2618
    204 Peach Way Suite B
    Columbia, MO 65203
    http://www.columbiahba.com

    Home Builders Association of Greater Kansas City
    Local # 2636
    600 E 103rd St
    Kansas City, MO 64131
    http://www.kchba.org

    Midland Empire Home Builders Association
    Local # 2629
    PO Box 8278
    Saint Joseph, MO 64508
    http://www.mehba.org

    SE Missouri Home Builders Association
    Local # 2691
    3667 County Road 222
    Cape Girardeau, MO 63701


    Home Builders Association of Greater Springfield
    Local # 2654
    636 W Republic Rd Ste D 108
    Springfield, MO 65807
    http://www.springfieldhba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Mora Missouri

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Allowing the Use of a General Verdict Form in a Construction Defect Case Could Subject Your Client to Prejudgment Interest

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

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

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

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

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

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

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

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

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

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

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

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

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

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

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

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

    The Complete and Accepted Work Doctrine and Construction Defects

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

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

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

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

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

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

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

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Webinar on Insurance Disputes in Construction Defects

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

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

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

    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Loss Caused by Seepage of Water Not Covered

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

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    California Lawyer Gives How-To on Pursuing a Construction Defect Claim

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

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

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    Good Signs for Housing Market in 2013

    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Florida trigger

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

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

    MORA MISSOURI CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Mora, Missouri 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 Mora'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
    Mora, Missouri

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for Louisiana has reversed the summary judgment of a lower court in the case of Widder v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Judge Roland L. Belsome wrote the opinion for the panel of three judges. Ms. Widder discovered that her home and its content were contaminated by lead. She applied to her insurer, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance, which denied her claim.

    In response to Ms. Widder’s suit, LCPIC applied for a summary judgment on the grounds that there was no physical loss and that the policy did not cover defective material, latents defects, and pollution damage.

    The appeals court found that the lead contamination of Widder’s home did meet the standards of a direct physical loss, citing a recent Chinese Drywall case. There, it was found, “when a home has been rendered unusable or uninhabitable, physical damage is not necessary.”

    The lower court addressed only one of LCPIC’s exclusions, addressing only the exclusion on basis of “faulty, inadequate or defective material.” The appeals court noted that the evidence offered at trial does not show that the building materials were the source of the lead. This provided the appeals court with a matter of fact to remand to the lower court.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    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


    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The ongoing case over claims that a group fixed homeowner board elections in order to supply the conspirators with a stream of construction defect cases and repairs has lead to fourteen guilty pleas. The judge recently issued charges against fifteen of the accused; one defendant did not join in the group as he was recovering from pneumonia. The prosecutors have asked the judge to delay sentencing, as the investigation is continuing. Prosecutors note that another dozen people may be indicted.

    Along with an earlier group who plead guilty, this brings the total number of guilty pleas in the case to twenty-five. All have promised to cooperate with authorities.

    The case has also involved four deaths, although authorities have not suspected foul play in the deaths. Nancy Quon, one of the four, was the construction defect attorney suspected to be at the center of the conspiracy.

    Read the full story…


    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    June 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.

    In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.

    The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.

    Read the court’s decision


    Construction Defect Lawsuits? There’s an App for That

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The website ebeeky.com reviews Picture It Settled, an app designed to help people engaged in lawsuits figure out where settlement strategies would be most successful. First available for Android and then iOS, the app is now available for Blackberry. One user of the application wrote that “anyone who has set through a construction defect mediation can immediately grasp the value of this app.

    The app tracks the negotiation process, allowing users to see a history of bids and counteroffers. It also models the negotiation process in order to predict the ultimate cost of settlement. These numbers are based on past similar negotiations that the user has entered.

    Read the full story…


    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Warren Township in New Jersey has waived building and electrical permit fees, up to $5,000, for businesses that create at least five new jobs. The fee reductions are available for construction in areas zones under various designations. Buildings that have received a zoning variance are not eligible. The Echoes-Sentinel notes that other towns in Somerset County, New Jersey have adopted similar ordinances.

    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…


    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Third Circuit Court has allowed claims to go forward against Owens Corning for making allegedly defective shingles. The shingles split, leading to leaking roofs. The building products manufacturer filed for bankruptcy in 2000, which “extinguished” claims against it. The company was facing millions in liabilities over asbestos lawsuits.

    The lawsuit was filed in 2009. The courts initially found the lawsuit timely, but the Third Circuit Court later applied determined the exposure stated before the bankruptcy. On appeal, the court has reversed this and is again allowing the suit to proceed.

    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


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

    March 7, 2011 — March 7, 2011 Construction Defect Journal Staff

    In the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.

    According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.

    The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.

    Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.

    Read Full Story...


    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    June 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    While digging for a new steam line at Eastern Michigan University, workers unearthed some old bones. Experts have yet to determine if the bones are human or animal, however Walter Kraft, the EMU vice president of communications, noted that a handle also unearthed might have come from a casket. Cindy Heflin, reporting in AnnArbor.com notes that until 1900 a Catholic cemetery was located in the area. Although the bodies were relocated, these may have been left behind.

    Read the full story…


    The Complete and Accepted Work Doctrine and Construction Defects

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Matthew C. Bouchard of Lewis & Roberts PLLC, writes how North Carolina is “bucking the trend” on the “complete and accepted work doctrine.” As he notes, in most states “a contractor can be found liable for personal injuries suffered by third parties from accidents occurring after the contractor’s work is completed and accepted.” But one exception is North Carolina.

    He gives the example of a case, Lamb v. D.S. Duggins Welding, Inc., in which a site superintendent was “injured by the alleged negligence of the project’s steel deck installer, a sub-subcontractor in the contractual chain” “after the sub-sub’s work had been completed and accepted.” The trial court held that the “completed and accepted work doctrine” ended the subcontractor’s liability. The case noted that “employees of the general contractor had modified the installation of the perimeter safety cable in question after the sub-sub had demobilized from the site.”

    Mr. Bouchard notes that “once a project is accepted and turned over, the contractor typically loses control over maintenance of the new facility.” However, he notes that “where the contractor’s work constitutes negligence ?Ķ the doctrine may not apply.” Nor does it end breach of contract claims. It only covers third parties.

    Read the full story…


    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…


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

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.

    The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.

    The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”

    Read the full story…


    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Sunset Lanai apartment building in West Hollywood, California has its fans, it also has its detractors. Designed by Edward H. Flickett and built in 1952 by George Alexander, the building isn’t wearing its years lightly. Its owner has opposed a move by the West Hollywood Preservation Commission that the building is a “local cultural resource.” Instead, Edwin Silver, the building’s owner says the group has overstated the building’s significance. His lawyer points to “design and construction flaws,” and says the building is prone to flooding and leaks. Repairs to the building have an estimated cost of $2.3 million, according to the L.A. Times.

    The West Hollywood City Council decided to table the question of a historical designation as that might impede repairs. However, they did decide that if Silver seeks to demolish the building, they will grant the protection.

    Read the full story…


    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in the case of Dale v. B&J Enters. (Tenn. App., 2012), affirming the ruling of the Chancery Court for Knox County. The homeowners purchased properties in Knoxville, Tennessee in 2007 and 2008. Subsequently, according to the complaint, they found “significant sink holes and depressions throughout the subdivision.” The plaintiffs determined that a previous developer in 2004 had been aware of the sink holes. The Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission, upon giving approval, made requirements that included that sink holes, even if they were filled, had to be designated on the site plans. The developer did not indicate these locations on the final plans. The plaintiffs made claims of “failure to disclose, misrepresentation, misrepresentation by concealment, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.” They filed their suit in June 2009.

    The defendants in the initial case, argued that they did not create the final plat, the site plan indicating the features and lot lines. This had been the work of the previous developer. In September, 2009, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include the previous developer and its engineering firm. The engineering firm disavowed any responsibility. The developer noted that the surveyor, Benchmark Associates, had “failed to properly include the sink holes and/or depressions on the final plat.” In June, 2010, the plaintiffs added Benchmark.

    Benchmark argued that the plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed, as Tennessee has a four-year statute of limitations on claims against surveyors. The final plat was recorded on May 19, 2006, and the plaintiff filed their claims against Benchmark on June 16, 2010, slightly less than a month over four years. The plaintiffs argued that “the real issue [was] the tortious misrepresentation by Benchmark.” The Chancery Court found for Benchmark.

    On appeal, the plaintiffs raised three issues. They argued that the trial court applied the wrong section of the law, and should have applied the section applying to construction and not surveyors. They also argued that the timeliness of the claim should be based on when the defects were discovered. The also raised the question of whether the laws concerning surveyors bar claims for misrepresentation. The appeals court upheld the decision of the Chancery Court.

    For the plaintiff’s first claim, although the statute addressing deficiencies in construction mentions surveying, an earlier court ruling found that the legislature had removed a reference to surveyors in one part of the statute, but failed to do so in the second part. The earlier court had concluded that the “obvious intent of the legislature was to place all limits on actions against surveyors into the new statute.” As the applicable statute states that “any such action not instituted within this four (4) year period shall be forever barred,” the court held that the plaintiffs’ claims must be time barred. Further, as the intent of the legislature was determined to “place all limits on actions against surveyors into one statute,” the court felt that it could not apply the Consumer Protection Act.

    Read the court’s decision…