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

    Minnesota Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Statutory warranties for one-year, two-year and ten-year periods limits types of construction defects actionable under warranty law; This statute (Chapter 327A) limits liability and excludes normal wear and tear, normal shrinkage caused by drying of the dwelling, loss due to insufficient ventilation, loss or damage from negligence, improper maintenance, or alteration to dwelling, loss or damage from failure to maintain or failure to mitigate


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Red Lake County Minnesota

    Residential contractors need to be licensed. If you work in two or more trades, certain trades will require a license. Call the state for details.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Headwaters Builders Association
    Local # 2480
    PO Box 402
    Bemidji, MN 56619
    http://www.headwatersbuilders.org

    Northern MN Builders Association
    Local # 2417
    802 S Pokegama Ave Ste A
    Grand Rapids, MN 55744
    http://www.nmbuilders.com

    Lake Region Builders Association
    Local # 2470
    1114 Hwy. 59 South Ste 2
    Detroit Lakes, MN 56501
    http://www.lakeregionbuilders.com

    Arrowhead Builders Association
    Local # 2415
    5255 Maple Grove Road
    HERMANTOWN, MN 55811
    http://www.abamn.org

    Home Builders Association of Mid-Minnesota
    Local # 2450
    17068 Commercial Park Road
    Brainerd, MN 56401
    http://www.midmnba.org

    Vikingland Builders Assoc
    Local # 2495
    509 22ND AVE E Ste 200
    Alexandria, MN 56308
    http://www.vikinglandbuilders.com

    Central Minnesota Builders Association
    Local # 2410
    1124 W Saint Germain St
    Saint Cloud, MN 56301
    http://www.cmbaonline.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Red Lake County Minnesota

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

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

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

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

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

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Architect Not Liable for Balcony’s Collapse

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

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

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

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

    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

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

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

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

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

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

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

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

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

    Know the Minnesota Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

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

    Mark Van Wonterghem To Serve as Senior Forensic Consultant in the Sacramento Offices of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

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

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

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

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

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

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

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

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

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

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

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

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

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

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

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

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

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

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

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

    Water Is the Enemy

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

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

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

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

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

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

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers
    Corporate Profile

    RED LAKE COUNTY MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    September 1, 2011 — CJD Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in Claredon American Insurance Company v. Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. This case was triggered by a water intrusion problem at a condominium complex, the Terraces at Emerystation, built and sold by Wareham Development Corporation. The insurer, Claredon, retained Risk Enterprise Management as the third party claims administrator. REM retained the law firm Bishop, Barry, Howe, Haney & Ryder. The construction defect case was settled in 2007 and the condo owners moved back by early 2008.

    Due to issues with the claims settlement, Claredon filed against REM for “professional negligence, indemnity, apportionment and contribution,” with a cross-complaint that the cross-defendants negligently defended the developer, Wareham.

    In response, the cross-defendants filed a motion to strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied this motion and now this has been upheld by the appeals court.

    The court noted that “The fundamental thrust of the cross-complaint is not protected litigation-related speech and petitioning activity undertaken on another’s behalf in a judicial proceeding.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Pictorial Construction Terminology Dictionary — A Quick and Helpful Reference

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Does it seem like contractors speak their own language? Construction defect professionals can be hampered by not knowing the terminology. The Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. web site has a handy Pictorial Construction Terminology Dictionary in which more than a thousand terms are not only defined, but illustrated with pictures that give a visual component to each definition.

    Whether you’re wondering what a balustrade is, or you need to identify a joist girder, or hundreds of other terms, the Pictorial Construction Terminology Dictionary is there to help you. It can be found at http://www.berthowe.com/bhapedia.php.


    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The AFL-CIO has announced plans to generate up to $10 billion in funding for infrastructure development, training construction workers, and making buildings more energy efficient, pledging $20 million to retrofit buildings. Bloomberg News reports that union officials made the announcement in Chicago at the Clinton Global Initiative, releasing a statement from Richard Trumka, president of the union, “we, at the AFL-CIO, believe that together, with our partners in business and government, we can profitably invest significant resources to make America more competitive and energy efficient.” A foot injury prevented Mr. Trumka from attending the event.

    The statement also quoted Mark Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, “the time is now to become intensely focused on the creation of jobs.”

    Read the full story…


    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Los Angeles and Orange Counties are first on a list no area wants to be on. According to the Sacramento Bee, reporting on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, LA and Orange Counties saw an $8 billion drop in construction wages in 2010, as compared to 2006. In 2006, the region saw payrolls of $26.8 billion, but in 2010, that was reduced to $18.5 billion.

    This was not the largest percentage change. Of the metropolitan areas with the largest declines in construction earnings, Las Vegas saw a $3.6 billion drop, however that represented half of their 2006 totals of $7.2 billion. Conversely, a $3.3 billion drop in the New York area represented only 10% of what had been $33.8 billion in payroll in 2006.

    Read the full story…


    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    American Woodmark, the manufacturer of several national brands of cabinets and vanities, saw greater than anticipated earnings in its most recent quarter. Their revenue was $148.3 million, an increase of 13% over the same quarter a year prior. They saw a 40% increase in sales. As a result, their per-share earnings were 7 cents, instead of the projected loss of 3 cents per share. Forbes reports that the share price for American Woodmark has been rising in August 2012.

    Read the full story…


    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    May 18, 2011 — May 18, 2011 - Douglas Reiser in the Builders Counsel Blog

    It takes more than a hard hat, but safety checks, a good policy and a smart contract might save you some problems.If you are a general contractor, you will want to pay close attention to this article. A new Washington appellate decision showcases a general contractor’s liability to subcontractors who are injured on the job, when security barriers fail. But can a general limit this liability? Will its contract help?

    In Wrought Corporation, Inc., Appellant V. Mario Interiano (quick note: this opinion is unpublished, but we are here to talk about an issue that was not determined on appeal – WISHA compliance), a subcontractor was injured when a security barrier failed and he fell into an elevator shaft.

    A jury awarded a $1.56 million verdict against the general contractor, and the court of appeals affirmed on the basis that the general contractor has a non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973, codified under RCW 49.17 (WISHA).

    Read the full story…

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


    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Laura K. Sanchez of HindmanSanchez writes that the FHA “will not approve or recertify” any condominium community “where there are any pending or incomplete repairs within the community which are a result of a construction defect claim, regardless of whether the litigation has been resolved and regardless of whether there are funds in the bank paid by the developer to pay for the repairs.” The FHA notes that failure to complete or fund repairs could “put FHA insured loans at risk.” Communities must disclose all maintenance and repair issues to the FHA. Sanchez notes that the FHA has stated that incomplete repairs could put FHA-insured loans at risk.

    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.


    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Cleveland condo association has sued the developer of their building, claiming that construction defects resulted in water intrusion. The K&D Group, which still owns forty units in the 160-unit building, claim that it’s a maintenance issue that they’d like to see fixed, but it’s their responsibility as the developer. Doug Price, CEO of K&D calls it a “frivolous lawsuit.” He blames a “hostile board” and told The Plain Dealer “there’s simple maintenance that they refuse to do.”

    An outside company evaluated Stonebridge Towers. According to the condo board’s lawyer, Laura Hauser, the building design and construction are to blame for the water intrusion. Hauser said that the board’s “goal through this litigation is to find a resolution for the association, the building and the owners.”

    David Kaman, a Cleveland attorney not involved in the lawsuit, told the Plain Dealer that construction litigation in the Cleveland area had fallen off from 2007, but he sees it on the rise, which he attributes to cost-cutting on recently finished projects. “If an owner moves in and two years later the wallpaper needs to be replaced because the wall is leaking, that’s a construction defect.”

    Read the full story…


    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    An upstate New York man who was injured when an unsecured truss fell off the railings of a scissor lift has settled for $500,000. As the accident happened at the building site for a casino for the Seneca Nation, attorneys for the construction firm had argued that New York labor laws were inapplicable as the injury happened on Seneca Nation land. The state appeals court ruled that as none of the parties involved were Native Americans, it was not internal to the affairs of the Seneca Nation.

    Read the full story...


    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…


    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    May 3, 2011 — May 3, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    North Carolina may become the twelfth state to require a Certificate of Merit to sue an architect or engineer. If North Carolina Senate Bill 435 (SB435) passes, then plaintiffs when filing a complaint will need to also attach an affidavit of a third-party licensed professional engineer or architect stating that the case has merit.

    SB435 is a short two pages in its current form. The bill states that the “third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall (i) be competent to testify and hold the same professional license and practice in the same area of practice as the defendant design professional and (ii) offer testimony based upon knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, and practice. The affidavit shall specifically state for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the design professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim. The third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall be licensed in this State and actively engaged in the practice of engineering or architecture respectively.”

    A few of the amendments allude to disciplining design professionals who certify civil actions that are without merit. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary I.

    While North Carolina is considering enacting a Certificate of Merit law, eleven other states already require one, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Christopher D. Montez, a partner with Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP, has written a useful summary for each state’s certificate of merit scheme.

    Read the text of SB435

    Track the progress of SB435

    Read more from Christopher D. Montez’s article on Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP site


    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”

    After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.

    The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.

    In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.

    Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.

    In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Southgate Gardens Condominium had buildings damaged by Hurricane Wilma in 2005. See Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basedeo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11864 (11th Cir. June 12, 2012). First State Development Corporation was hired by Southgate to do repairs.

    On November 1, 2005, First State completed tarping on the buildings. Thereafter, on November 11, 2005, First State contracted with Southgate to remove and replace the roofs of the Southgate Buildings.

    The tarps placed by First State were inadequate and allowed water to enter the unit of Wayne Basdeo and cause damage. Further, when it attached the tarps, First State caused holes to be made in the roofs of buildings, leading to additional damage. First State also left open the mansards (a type of roof which has two slopes on all all sides, but with the lower slope steeper that the upper one). Finally, the peeled-back condition of the roofing allowed rain to enter.

    Basdeo filed a claim with Mid-Continent.

    Read the full story…

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


    Tucson Officials to Discuss Construction Defect Claim

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The mayor of Tucson, Arizona and the city council scheduled a meeting on June 26, 2012 in order to consult with the city’s attorneys concerning possible construction defect litigation involving the Martin Luther King, Jr. apartment building in that city. The memorandum was authored by Richard Miranda, the Tucson city manager.

    Read the full story…


    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an insurance provision that excluded construction defects must stand in Friedberg v. Chubb, granting a summary judgment to the insurance firm.

    The Friedbergs discovered extensive water damage to their home after a woodpecker drilled a hole in a vertical support. They sought insurance coverage under their Chubb “Masterpiece” policy. The decision quotes the policy as covering “all risk of physical loss” “unless stated otherwise or an exclusion applies.” These exclusions included “gradual or sudden loss,” “structural movement,” and “faulty planning, construction or maintenance,” but the policy covered “ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies.”

    Chubb’s expert determined that the Friedbergs’ home had defective construction, and “attributed the damage to the beams and walls below the beam to a failure to install control joints.” After Chubb denied coverage, the Friedbergs sued, although the court ruled that “even under the Friedbergs’ theory, the water damage was a loss caused by faulty construction and therefore excluded under the policy.”

    On appeal, the Friedbergs argued that “the loss resulted from the combination of both faulty construction and the presence of water” and that Minnesota’s “concurrent causation” doctrine must apply, which according to the decision, “when a loss results from both a covered peril and an excluded peril, coverage exists unless the excluded peril is the ‘overriding cause’ of the loss.” The court rejected this reasoning, noting that “once the house was plagued with faulty construction, it was a foreseeable and natural consequence that water would enter.”

    The Friedbergs also contended that “the damage caused by the intrusion of water into their home is an ‘ensuing covered loss’ for which they are due coverage.” The court also rejected this claim, noting that Minnesota law excludes defective construction from the ensuing loss provision. The court said that “the Friedbergs’ reading of their ensuing-loss clause, by contrast, would dramatically limit their policy’s faulty-construction exclusion, because almost ‘any loss cause by’ faulty construction could also be characterized as an ensuing loss under an all-risk policy.”

    Read the court’ decision…


    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    September 30, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

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

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

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

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

    Read the full story…

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


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

    June 19, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    A months back, I discussed the passage of SHB 1559. The law changes the existing statutory indemnification regulation to include the costs of defense and to rid contracts of unfair indemnification for someone else’s sole negligence. The law went into effect last week!

    Check back to my recent article on the changes set forth in the new law. The amendments to RCW 4.24.115 will broaden the existing law and clarify what types of indemnification are unenforceable. In short, an “up the chain” contractor (such as a general contractor) cannot expect to pass 100% of the defense and indemnification obligations downward if it is partially liable.

    Read the full story…

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