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

    Wisconsin Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB448 specifies 90 day notice with details and evidence prior to commencing legal action. It provides for a 15 day written response from contractor or 25 days if cross-claims against subcontractors; The law states “The claimant and contractor or supplier are bound by any contractor or supplier warranty terms pertaining to products or services supplied for the dwelling.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Marquette County Wisconsin

    Contractors are required to have the correct credentials for their trade. Not all classifications require credentialing. For a list of credentials, see the website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Sheboygan Cty Home Builders Association
    Local # 5159
    435 E Mill Street
    Plymouth, WI 53073
    http://www.schba.org

    Home Builders Association of Fond Du Lac & Dodge Cos
    Local # 5116
    490 W Rolling Meadows Dr
    Fond Du Lac, WI 54937
    http://www.homebuildersfdldodge.com

    Mid Wisconsin Home Builders Association
    Local # 5181
    PO Box 865
    Portage, WI 53901
    http://www.mwhba.org/

    La Crosse Area Builders Association
    Local # 5126
    816 2nd Ave S
    Onalaska, WI 54650
    http://www.labaonline.com

    Mid-Shore Home Builders Association Affil w/National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 5150
    PO Box 125 2104 Mary Ave
    New Holstein, WI 53061
    http://midshoreshomebuilders.com

    Winnebago Home Builders Association
    Local # 5190
    4041 State Road 91 Suite A
    Oshkosh, WI 54904
    http://www.whba.net

    Manitowoc County Home Builders Association
    Local # 5143
    1011 South 10th St Ste 103
    Manitowoc, WI 54220
    http://www.manitowoccountyhomebuilders.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Marquette County Wisconsin

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

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

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

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

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

    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Loss Caused by Seepage of Water Not Covered

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

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

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Know the Minnesota Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

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

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

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

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

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

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

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

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

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

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

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

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

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Construction Defect Lawsuits? There’s an App for That

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    There Is No Non-Delegable Duty on the Part of Residential Builders in Colorado

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Pictorial Construction Terminology Dictionary — A Quick and Helpful Reference

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Colorado “occurrence”

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

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

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

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

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

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Tucson Officials to Discuss Construction Defect Claim
    Corporate Profile

    MARQUETTE COUNTY WISCONSIN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Marquette County, Wisconsin 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 Marquette County'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
    Marquette County, Wisconsin

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    If a condominium owner suffers damage caused by a leak from another unit, may it sue the insurer for the Association of Apartment Owner (AOAO) for coverage? The federal district court for Hawaii said "no" in a decision by Judge Mollway. See Peters v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148734 (D. Haw. December 27, 2011).

    Two cases were consolidated. In each case, Plaintiffs owned condominium units at the Watercrest Resort on Molokai. Water leaking from another unit damaged Plaintiffs’ units.

    Watercrest Resort was insured by Lexington pursuant to a policy maintained by the AOAO. Plaintiffs filed claims with Lexington. Lexington hired an adjustor.

    Unhappy with the adjustment of their claims, Plaintiffs sued Lexington and the adjustor.

    Read the full story…

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


    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    March 1, 2011 — Original Story by Lori Bauman, Ater Wynne LLP, Northwest Business Litigation Blog

    In Abraham v. T. Henry, Oregon’s court of appeals held that a Oregon’s court of appeals holds that a homeowner may sue builder for common law negligence absent a contractual provision that forecloses such a claim. Plaintiff homeowners hired defendant contractors to build a house. When plaintiffs discovered defects in the construction years later, they sued for negligence.

    The Court of Appeals held that the parties’ contractual relationship did not prevent a negligence claim, and that plaintiffs were entitled to pursue a negligence per se claim based on a violation of the Oregon Building Code.

    The Supreme Court affirmed, but on a somewhat different basis. First, according to the Court, a construction defect claim concerns damage to property — and not mere economic losses — and thus is not barred by the economic loss doctrine. Second, the existence

    Read Full Story...


    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Is the homebuilding crunch over in DC? The Washington Post has reported that while new home construction is up throughout the country, in the DC area, construction has reached levels last seen in 2006. From January to August 2012, there were more than 19,000 building permits issued in the area, nearly doubling the number issued by that point in 2011.

    While building is on a quicker pace, what’s being built has changed. As compared to 2006, there are more townhomes, condos, and smaller homes being built. The article notes that 11 percent of new construction is condos, while in 2006, it was only 5 percent.

    Read the full story…


    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that Nevada’s construction defect and minimum wage laws are hampering job growth. The organization conducted a survey, and although only about two percent of the members responded, they passed the opinions of the group on to Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has said, according to the report by Fox News Reno, that he wants the state to be more business friendly. He supports reforms to Nevada’s construction defect laws, saying that he’d “like to see some reform” on the issue of mandatory attorney’s fees.

    Randi Thompson, the spokesperson for the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said that members of her organization would like to see current Nevada construction defect law revoked. She described current law as “driven towards lawyers and not toward protecting consumers.”

    Read the full story…


    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    June 15, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Hill reports that HR 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs (VA) and Related Agencies bill, has passed with only five votes in opposition. The bill cuts the budget for military construction spending by $2.6 billion due to anticipated base closures.

    The bill includes $186 million for family housing construction by the Army, $100 million for family housing construction by the Navy and Marines, and $84 million for family construction by the Air Force, with an additional $50 million allocated for the DOD outside the military branches. By the act, these funds will remain available until September 30, 2016.

    Read the full story…

    Read HR 2055


    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    June 29, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Associated General Contractors of America reported Tuesday, June 28 that construction employment increased in 120 of the 337 metropolitan areas surveyed between May 2010 and May 2011.

    ‘While construction employment has stopped plunging, any sign of a recovery remains spotty at best,” said Ken Simonson, the association’s chief economist. ‘The close to even split between areas adding and losing jobs is a reminder that for every market doing well, there is another market that is still hurting.”

    The largest number of jobs created was in the Dallas, Texas region, with 5,600 new jobs, a five percent increase. The northern Massachusetts/southern New Hampshire region near Haverhill saw the greatest percentage increase, although that twenty-two percent increase represents only 800 new jobs. The Chicago, Illiinois area added 4,600 jobs, a four percent increase.

    Other regions were not so lucky. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw a loss of 7,400 jobs, an eight percent loss. Las Vegas also lost 7,400 jobs, which there represented a sixteen percent decline. The New York City area lost 6,700 jobs, a six percent reduction. The Riverside, California area lost 5,300 jobs, a nine percent loss.

    Stephen E. Sandherr, the association’s chief executive officer, blamed a combination of regulation and budget squeezes. "Some in Washington never met a regulation they didn’t like and others never found a penny they didn’t want to pinch. Together that makes for a bad way to boost employment and a great way to stifle the private sector and neglect critical economic infrastructure.”

    Read the full story…


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

    August 4, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    Colorado General Assembly House Bill 10-1394 was signed into law by the Governor on May 21, 2010, codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-808 (2010)

    13-20-808. Insurance policies issued to construction professionals

    (1) (a) The general assembly finds and determines that:

    (I) The interpretation of insurance policies issued to construction professionals is of vital importance to the economic and social welfare of the citizens of Colorado and in furthering the purposes of this part 8.

    (II) Insurance policies issued to construction professionals have become increasingly complex, often containing multiple, lengthy endorsements and exclusions conflicting with the reasonable expectations of the insured.

    (III) The correct interpretation of coverage for damages arising out of construction defects is in the best interest of insurers, construction professionals, and property owners.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Yes, said the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Pope v. Heritage Communities, Inc. Heritage Communities developed Riverwalk, a community in South Carolina. During the earlier trial, HCI “conceded that construction defects existed at Riverwalk, and repairs needed to be made.” The trial court found that the construction was negligent, awarding the property owners association $4.25 million in actual damages and $250,000 in punitive damages, with the class of owners awarded $250,000 in actual damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. HCI appealed on nine issues. All were rejected by the appeals court.

    The court rejected HCI’s claim that the judge’s instruction to the jury suggested to the jury that “the court had already determined that Appellants were willful, wanton, and reckless.” But here, the appeals court found “no reversible error.”

    The general contractor for Riverwalk was BuildStar. Off-site management and sale were managed by Heritage Riverwalk, Inc., which also owned title to the property. Both these companies were owned by Heritage Communities, Inc. During the trial, an HCI employee testified that “the three corporations shared the same officers, directors, office, and telephone number.” The trial court found that the three entities were amalgamated. This was upheld by the appeals court.

    Nor did the appeals agree with the HCI that the trial court had improperly certified a class. The owners were seen as properly constituting a class. Further, the court held that the property owners’ losses were properly included by the trial court. HCI objected at trial to the inclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures, however, as they did not object that it was inadmissible, the issue could not be addressed at appeal.

    HCI argued on appeal that the trial court should not have allowed evidence of defects at other HCI developments. The appeals court noted that “the construction defects at the other HCI developments were substantially similar to those experienced by Riverwalk.”

    The court additionally found that the negligence claims, the estimated damages (since full damage could not be determined until all defective wood was removed), and the award of punitive damages were all properly applied.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Texas “your work” exclusion

    January 6, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

    In American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C., No. 10-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), claimant Ergon hired insured Cat Tech to perform service on a reactor at Ergon’s refinery. During a start-up of the reactor after Cat Tech had completed its work, the reactor suffered damage. Cat Tech performed additional service and repairs. However, again upon start-up of the reactor, it suffered additional damage. Ergon hired another contractor to repair the reactor. Ergon initiated arbitration proceedings against Cat Tech. Cat Tech’s CGL insurer American Home defended Cat Tech against the Ergon arbitration under a reservation of rights.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    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


    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    August 4, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    On July 28, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Clasen Fruit & Cold Storage v. Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. that more than six years had passed since a contractor had concluded work and so granted a summary dismissal of the suit.

    Frederick & Michael Construction Co., Inc. (F&M) was contracted to construct several buildings for Clasen Fruit and Cold Storage. These were completed in March, 1999. The buildings suffered wind damage to the roofs in 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2006. In the first two incidents, F&M repaired the roofs with Clasen paying for repairs.

    In 2005, Clasen hired Continuous Gutter to make repairs. The final incident was the collapse of the roof of one building. This was attributed to “excessive moisture in the roof’s vapor barriers.” At this point, Clasen demanded that F&M pay for repair and replacement costs. In 2008, Clasen sued F&M for damages for breach of contract and negligent design and construction of the roof.

    The decision then covered the meanings, in Washington law, of “termination of services” and “substantial completion.” The panel concluded that construction was “substantially completed in 1997” and “relevant services” by 2001. “But Clasen did not sue until 2008, some seven years after termination of any roof related services.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    July 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Texas-based Godfather Construction is a recipient of a fraud suit from the Cook County state attorney’s office. The firm incorporated in Illinois in April 2010, moving there to do business after storms damaged homes in the Chicago suburbs, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. The state attorney alleges that Godfather brought unlicensed out-of-state workers and the work they performed was “incomplete or shoddy.” Godfather is claimed to have received about $60,000 from Illinois homeowners. The prosecutors are seeking restitution for Godfather’s clients and seek to forbid the firm from doing business in Illinois.

    Read the full story…


    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    August 17, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Coverage was denied under the policy’s condominium exclusion in California Traditions, Inc. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co.,2011 Cal. App.LEXIS912 (Cal. Ct. App., ordered published July 11, 2011).

    California Traditions was the developer and general contractor for a housing development. California Traditions subcontracted with Ja-Con to perform the rough framing work for 30 residential units. The project had 146 separate residences that were freestanding with no shared walls, roof, halls, or plumbing or electrical lines. To allow a higher density development, the project was developed, marketed and sold as condominiums.

    The purchaser of one of the units filed a complaint against California Traditions alleging property damage from the defective construction. California Traditions cross-complained against Ja-Con.

    Read the full story…

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


    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    July 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawwaii

    The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for a deck that collapsed due to rot and decay. Sprague v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2012 Wash. LEXIS 375 (Wash. May 17, 2012). Our prior post on the Court of Appeals’ decision is here.

    The Sprague’s home had a deck supported by six "fin walls." The fin walls were encased in a foam and stucco coating. Twenty years after they purchased the home, it was discovered that the fin walls were in an advanced state of decay. Engineers discovered that construction defects caused the supports to rot. The deck was in danger of imminent collapse.

    Safeco denied coverage. The all-risk policy did not exclude collapse, but did exclude coverage for losses causes by mold, wet or dry rot.

    Read the full story…

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


    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…


    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…


    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    June 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff
    Event exhibitors and sponsors contribute to an informative and engaging environment
    Event exhibitors and sponsors contribute to an informative and engaging environment

    This year’s meeting was the best yet for the industry-leading construction defect and claims event.

    This year’s seminar concluded on May 13, 2011 with the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation Golf Tournament, held at Strawberry Farms Golf Course.

    The Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California was the place where more than 1,500 attendees convened for two days of professional development activities and seminars that included CLE workshops and panel discussions of special interest to legal and insurance professionals concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. Key events included “Challenges for Experts in Construction Defect Claims and Litigation,” “Keeping Up with Construction Defect Coverage,” and “Tips for Avoiding the ‘Perfect Storm’ in Handling of Wrap Claims.”

    Supporting the golf tournament at the 15th hole
    Supporting the golf tournament at the 15th hole

    This year’s Ollie award was given to George D. Calkins II, Esq. The West Coast Casualty Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence was named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, and recognizes an individual who is outstanding or has contributed to the betterment of the construction community.

    In addition to being the most comprehensive professional development seminar in the area of construction defects, this year’s seminar was equally valuable as a networking opportunity for members of the industry. People participated in professional development events during the day and then continued networking in the evening at numerous social events. The Lawn Party as well as the legendary Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman events were very well attended. Additional valuable networking events were hosted by a number of industry professionals at the House of Blues, and Tortilla Joe’s.

    As of this writing the 2011, West Coast Casualty's Construction Defect Seminar has applied for or has already received the following continuing education accreditation in the following areas;

    Read the full story…

    For more information about next year’s event, visit West Coast Casualty.