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

    Montana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 389; Code Section 70-19-427 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. After being served with written notice, the contractor has 21 days to respond: offer to inspect the defect, repair the defect, offer a settlement or dispute the claim.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Prairie County Montana

    Businesses must register with the Secretary of State. No state license is required for general contracting. Licensure is required for plumbing, electrical, and crane operating trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Helena Building Industry Association
    Local # 2766
    3180 Dredge Dr Ste B
    Helena, MT 59602
    http://www.helenabia.com

    Missoula Building Industry Association
    Local # 2788
    1840 S Ave W
    Missoula, MT 59801
    http://www.buildmissoula.com

    Montana Home Builders Association
    Local # 2700
    1717 11th Ave
    Helena, MT 59601
    http://www.montanabia.com

    Bitterroot Building Industry Association
    Local # 2729
    PO Box 1299
    Hamilton, MT 59840
    http://wwwbbiamontana.org

    Rocky Mountain Chapter
    Local # 2750
    PO Box 154
    Anaconda, MT 59711


    Home Builders Association of Great Falls
    Local # 2744
    600 6th St NW Ste 5
    Great Falls, MT 59404


    Home Builders Association of Billings
    Local # 2722
    PO Box 875
    Billings, MT 59103
    http://www.hbabillings.net


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Prairie County Montana

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

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

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    San Diego Construction Defect Claim Settled for $2.3 Million

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

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

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Landslide and Water Leak

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    United States District Court Confirms That Insurers Can Be Held Liable Under The CCPA.

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

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

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

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

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

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

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

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

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Defect Claims as Occurrences? Check Your State Laws

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

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Condo Owners Worried Despite Settlement

    Architect Not Liable for Balcony’s Collapse

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

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

    Association May Not Make Claim Against Builder in Vermont Construction Defect Case

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

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

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

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

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

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

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

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

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

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

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

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Courts Are Conflicted As To Whether "Good Faith" Settlement Determinations Can Be Reviewed Via Writ Petition Or Appeal

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

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

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

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine
    Corporate Profile

    PRAIRIE COUNTY MONTANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Prairie County, Montana Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Prairie County's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Prairie County, Montana

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    While new home construction is on the rise in some parts of the country, San Diego has seen a fall, comparing the first seven months of 2012 with the first seven months of 2011, dropping nine percent, according to an article in the San Diego Business Journal. The news isn’t all bad, since although July residential construction dropped sharply, nonresidential construction increased thirty-six percent.

    Read the full story…


    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Next June, members of the U.S. Green Building Council will be voting on changes to the LEED green building standard. “The bar is getting raised,” said Navad Malin of BuildingGreen, a consulting and publishing firm, in an article in USA Today. Under the proposed guidelines, builders would have to project energy and water use for five years as part of the certification process. However, if the occupants aren’t as green as the builders anticipated, the buildings will not lose their certification.

    The new rules will include higher energy standards, award points for avoiding potentially hazardous materials, and even determine what kind of plumbing items can be used.

    Read the full story…


    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Two New Jersey contractors have pleaded guilty to charges that they made false representations for a government contract in a case related to kickbacks for construction work done in two school districts. New Jersey is recommending that the two men, Martin Starr and Stephen Gallagher, will each pay $50,000 in penalties, serve up to a year in jail, and be unable to accept public contracts for five years.

    Last month, another individual in the case, Kenneth Disko, who had been the engineer for the school district, pleaded guilty on a similar charge. In addition to a $50,000 penalty, he will be serving three to five years in prison. A fourth conspirator, Robert Berman, the former business administrator for one of the school districts, has to pay a $13,000 fine and cooperate with the investigation. He is also barred from public employment in New Jersey and has been terminated from his position.

    Starr admitted to preparing fictitious quotes which appeared to be from other contractors in order that his firm would seem to be the lowest bidder. Gallagher helped in preparing the fictitious bids and also provided cash kickbacks to Disko.

    Read the full story…


    Courts Are Conflicted As To Whether "Good Faith" Settlement Determinations Can Be Reviewed Via Writ Petition Or Appeal

    July 10, 2012 — Stephen A. Sunseri and Aarti Kewalramani, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

    The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, ruled in Oak Springs Villas Homeowners Association v. Advanced Truss Systems, Inc., et al., (June 14, 2012, B234568) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2012 WL 2149923], that a non-settling defendant cannot appeal a trial court's good faith settlement determination. Instead, a non-settling defendant may only file a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 to challenge a good faith determination. This decision comes on the heels of a 2011 ruling in Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, which found that a writ petition is not the sole means of challenging a trial court's good faith settlement determination.

    In Oak Springs Villas, supra, the condominium homeowners' association sued a developer, general contractor, and various subcontractors for alleged construction deficiencies and resultant property damage. The association eventually settled with the developer, but not with a truss manufacturer. The trial court approved the developer's motion for good faith settlement determination, and the truss manufacturer immediately appealed, instead of filing a writ petition. On appeal, the developer argued the good faith determination was not an appealable order. The truss manufacturer argued Cahill applied, as well as an older case, Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19 Cal.3d 564, which allowed for appeals when no remaining issues exist as to the appealing party.

    The Court of Appeal ruled in the developer's favor and declined to follow Cahill, stating the truss manufacturer should have filed a writ petition, as expressly required under Section 877.6, subdivision (e). The Court also believed Justus was inapplicable because a non-settling party should not be allowed to have two review opportunities ?Äì one after an adverse good faith ruling, and then another after the ultimate conclusion of the case.

    However, the greater effect is that Cahill and Oak Springs Villas simultaneously stand in conflict and appear to be valid law. One case allows for an appeal of a good faith settlement determination, while the other requires strict adherence to the statute. The Supreme Court is likely to review the issue. In the meantime, parties challenging good faith rulings are advised to consult the statutory requirements under Section 877.6, subdivision (e).

    Printed courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri and Aarti Kewalramani, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP. Mr. Sunseri can be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com and Ms. Kewalramani can be contacted at akewalramani@gdandb.com.


    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    September 1, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    Remember Courthouse Square? I sure do. We have talked about the closed and evacuated LEED certified building a couple of times here on Builders Counsel. Well, it’s back in the news. This time building professionals are pointing fingers — but there is some talk about a fix. Still, its LEED certification remains.

    If you read my past articles about Courthouse Square, you can get caught up on this mess. The short of it is that Salem, Oregon had the five-story government building and bus mall completed in 2000 for $34 Million. It was awarded LEED certification during the USGBC’s infancy. Last year, it became public that the building had significantly defective concrete and design. The Salem-Keizer Transit District worked with the City of Salem to shut the building down, and it has not been occupied since.

    Last fall, Courthouse Square failed thorough forensic testing leading to a lengthy bout with a number of insurers.  The contractors and designers had been hauled into court, but the Transit District was able to settle with the architect and contractors. The only remaining party involved in the lawsuit appears to be the engineering firm, Century West Engineering. Most expert reports have pinned the responsibility for the poor design and materials on Century West’s shoulders.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com


    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Federal Highway Administration has released a list of bridges and overpasses that may be prone to corrosion problems due to grout that was in chlorides when it was supposed to be completely free of them. Currently, the FHA is working with state departments of transportation to determine if the defective grout was indeed used on additional bridges and overpasses. The initial FHA list of structures determined to have been built with the defective grout lists thirty-four sites, of which four are in Ohio, the largest number for any state.

    California contains only one such site, the intersection of the 55 and 405 freeways, one of the few items on the list not designated as a bridge.

    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…


    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    August 11, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    It’s been a while since I discussed the importance of safety. But, a recent article on ENR.com compelled this brief article. Don’t shortcut safety — you could be facing serious criminal repercussions.

    A New York crane company owner and one of his employees are each facing a second-degree manslaughter charge for the death of two construction workers.  The charges stem from the collapse of a crane in New York City. The district attorney determined that the crane owner cut a few corners to reduce its operation costs, significantly sacrificing safety.

    Another example was the 2010 trial of another New York crane operator who was charged with manslaughter. In that case, the criminal charges failed to stick, but an administrative judge found that the contractor used a damaged sling to support the steel collar binding the tower-crane mast to the 18th floor of a high-rise building being constructed. The company also used four slings instead of the eight, as specified by the crane manufacturer; improperly attached the slings and failed to pad or soften them.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com


    Insurance Firm Under No Duty to Defend in Hawaii Construction Defect Case

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court for Hawaii has granted a motion for summary judgment in Evanston Insurance v. Nagano. The case is related to a construction defect claim, Hu v. Nagano, and the issue at hand is whether Evanston Insurance is obligated to defend the Naganos in the underlying case.

    The Hus hired Eric Nagano and his firm PMX to construct a house. Mr. Nagano’s firm was insured by Evanston, however, he lost his contractor’s license in “approximately March 2006.” Mr. Nagano sought the Hus’ authorization to allow HC Builders to take over the contract. HC Builders is headed by Mr. Nagano’s wife, Hiroko, who has held a contractor’s license since “approximately September 2006.” Ms. Nagano and HC Builders were also insured by Evanston Insurance. The house, started by PMX was finished by HC Builders.

    The Hus authorized construction to begin in July 2003, but “construction did not commence until approximately October 2004 and, even after commencement, there were numerous delays resulting in months of inactivity on the Project.” The Hus had expressed to Mr. Nagano and PMX “that the construction period could not exceed twelve months after July 1, 2003.” As a result of the delays, “the Hus’ community association fined them because of the prolonged construction and the Hus’ construction lender assessed extension fees and fines for exceeding the term of the loan.”

    The Hus noted that the project did not have a licensed contractor from March through September 2006. In the end, the Hus “allege that Defendants did not fulfill the obligations under the Construction Contract,” and that “the Project was ‘grossly delayed’ and the construction was ‘riddled with defects.’” Despite an Owner’s Notice of Completion filed in December 2007, the residence “had no electricity, no hot water, ... no installed appliances” and “parts of the flooring were either missing or incomplete.” And then it leaked.

    The Naganos tendered the defense to Evanston. The Naganos “allege the defense is limited because Evanston: allowed default to be entered against the Naganos (the default was later set aside); delayed retaining experts; and limited the ability of the Naganos’ retained counsel to perform necessary actions to advance the case.” Evanston argues that it “does not have a duty to defend or indemnify Defendants against the Hus’ claims,” as the Hus’ claims are not covered under the policy. Further, the PMX policies have an exclusion for breach of contract.

    The court concluded that all of the claims made by the Hus were based in contract and therefore were outside of the terms of the Naganos insurance coverage, as the courts have "construed Hawaii law as not providing for insurance coverage for contract related claims." Therefore, Evanston does not have a duty to defend the Naganos.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A summary judgment was affirmed in the case of Brown v. Farmers Group, by the California Court of Appeals. The Browns bought a new home in Oakley, California. At the time, they signed disclosure statement “acknowledging that the area around their home experienced gusty winds and would be in development for years to come, which might result in dust and airborne mold.”

    The Browns found an unusual amount of dust in their home, which became worse when they ran their heating and air conditioning system. Shelia Brown was later diagnosed with chronic valley fever, which was attributed to airborne mold. The Browns contacted Farmers which investigated the house. Although the adjustor from Farmers said the Browns would be covered, Farmers denied the claim.

    After the Browns moved out of the house, an inspector found that the HVAC line in the attic was disconnected, sending dust into the home. The Browns brought action against Mid-Century Insurance, which managed the policy, and Farmers. The identified the HVAC defect, window problems, and valley fever as causes, suing for breach of contact, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    The court rejected all these claims. The policy with Farmers excluded losses due to defective construction. This ruled out the faulty HVAC system and any problems there might have been from the windows. The policy also specifically excluded losses from contamination, fungi, pathogens, and noxious substances. The court further found that the adjustor’s opinion was irrelevant to the question of what the policy actually covered. Finally, the court found no evidence of intentional infliction of emotional stress.

    On review, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s conclusions and affirmed the summary judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    May 26, 2011 — Melissa Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

    For those of you following the proposed revisions to the NC lien law that is currently at the NC House Judiciary Subcommittee B, a quick update: the proposed bill (HB 489) is unlikely to be voted on this legislative session due to its unpopularity with several constituency groups, including both the AIA-North Carolinaand the NC Home Builders Association.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.


    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    April 25, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Guy Randles offers an amusing set of odd construction law cases in the Daily Journal of Commerce, which he describes as “the unexpected, the fascinating and even the bizarre.” He noted that in one case “a whistleblower claimed he was terminated for reporting to the owner that the contractor’s painters had not applied the required coating thickness.” The whistleblower was the project manager and “was responsible for ensuring the proper coating thickness.”

    A less amusing case was that of an architect who was arrested for manslaughter. Gerard Baker “told investigators that the considered the fireplaces to be merely decorative.” Randles notes that “the mansion’s fireplaces were built of wood framing and lined with combustible drywall.” Further, a “gas fireplace even vented into the house’s interior.” Building officials called the house “a death trap.” According to the LA police chief this may be the only case in which building defects lead to a manslaughter charge.

    Read the full story…


    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Courthouse News has a summary of the current lawsuit over a Nevada conspiracy to defraud homeowners by taking control of homeowner boards and then providing inadequate repairs. Homeowners in eight Las Vegas area communities are involved in the suit, which claims that the conspirators purchased units in the communities and then transferred fractional interests to others to allow them to run for HOA board elections. The suit claims that David Amesbury and his firm helped manipulate the elections.

    Once homeowner boards were controlled by the conspirators, Nancy Quon, the construction defect attorney whose recent death appears to be by suicide, handled the litigation against homebuilders. She would settle out of court, engaging Silver Lining Construction to “do very minor and superficial repairs” to the homes. The remainder of the money was split by the conspirators. The suit also notes that the construction defect claims were “frivolous,” and?in addition to the negative publicity?caused the homes to lose at least 5% of their value.

    Read the full story…


    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed a partial summary judgment issued by one of the lower courts in the case of The Retreat at Edisto Co-Owners Association v. The Retreat at Edisto. The underlying issues of the case deal with a construction defect complaint.

    The lower court had concluded “Developer’s ‘First Amendment’ to the Master Deed required the Developer to satisfy the provision in the paragraph labeled ‘Master Deed Amendment or Phase II’ as a condition precedent to its election to proceed with the development of Phase II.”

    The appeals court found that “the language of the First Amendment to the Master Deed is susceptible to more than one interpretation.” The court additionally concluded that the “Developer presented the requisite scintilla of evidence on the question of its intent in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact. As the material facts were in dispute, the appeals court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

    Read the court’s decision…


    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 Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…