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

    Colorado Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 1161 has three significant components that effect construction defect litigation. The first is a right to remedy and notice provision (75 days written notice) The homeowner must give the builder a notice that describes the nature of the claimed construction defects, the location of the defects and a general description of the type of damages that are claimed. The second component is a limitation on the nature and type of damages that can be pursued and awarded in a construction defect case. The third is a limitation on the availability and amount of punitive damages ($250,000) under the provisions of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Washington County Colorado

    State license required for electrical, asbestos removal, plumbers, and pesticides trade; no state license for general contracting. Licensing may be required on a city or county level.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Grand County Builders Association
    Local # 0654
    PO Box 185
    Granby, CO 80446
    http://www.grandcountybuildersassoc.com

    Home Builders Association of Colorado
    Local # 0600
    600 Grant St Ste 550
    Denver, CO 80203
    http://www.hbacolorado.com

    Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado
    Local # 0660
    PO Box 669
    Windsor, CO 80550
    http://www.hbanco.com

    Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Denver
    Local # 0650
    9033 E Easter Pl Ste 200
    Centennial, CO 80112
    http://www.hbadenver.com

    Eagle Valley Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 0652
    PO Box 3550
    Eagle, CO 81631
    http://www.evhba.com

    Summit County Builders Association
    Local # 0688
    PO Box 2245
    Frisco, CO 80443
    http://www.summitcountybuilders.org

    Mountain to Mesa Home Builders Association
    Local # 0670
    PO Box 2719
    Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
    http://www.memhba.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Washington County Colorado

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

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

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

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

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

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

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

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

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

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

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

    Insurer Settles on Construction Defect Claim

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

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

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

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

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

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Plans Go High Tech

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

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

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

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

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

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    West Coast Casualty Promises Exciting Line Up at the Nineteenth Annual Conference

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

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

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

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

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

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

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

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

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    Insurer Has Duty to Disclose Insured's Interest In Obtaining Written Explanation of Arbitration Award

    Construction Defects: 2010 in Review

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

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

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

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects
    Corporate Profile

    WASHINGTON COUNTY COLORADO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Washington County, Colorado 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 Washington 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
    Washington County, Colorado

    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Peter Lissner, a former Nevada homebuilder, has created a new site to help track homes that have been involved in construction defect litigation. His site, housefaxreview.com, collections documentation about homes where claims of construction defects have been made. He told The Builders Magazine concerns about “the number of homes that have been served notices, received compensation, yet the homes weren’t repaired.” On the site, the creator is identified as “a family owned builder.” According to the site, “the builder had no claims until the neighborhood reached the statutory claims limit 10 years.”

    Lissner also claims that in many cases, after settling construction defect lawsuits, the homeowners sell to subsequent buyers without disclosing the lawsuit or their failure to repair. “Who is going to let the new homeowner know about the issue?” he asks.

    Documents on the site are priced according to their relevance. Lissner notes that those who provide documents to the site will receive free access.

    Read the full story…


    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    June 10, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Baldo, No. 09-338 (D. Del. June 2, 2011), claimants condominium association and unit owners sued project developer Rehoboth and general contractor Capano seeking damages because of moisture penetration property damage to common elements and individual units resulting from construction defects. Rehoboth and Capano filed a third party complaint against insured property manager Baldo alleging that, if Rehoboth and Capano were liable to claimants, Baldo was also liable because of Baldo’s failure to properly manage, maintain, and repair the property

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


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

    May 26, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.

    The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”

    Read the full story…

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


    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The California State License Board charged sixteen people in the Fresno area with accepting contracting jobs without licenses. The Statewide Investigative Fraud Team of the CSLB set up a sting operation at a home in Clovis, California seeking bids on tree service, painting, and general contracting services. Those who bid for jobs at more than $500 are required under California law to be licensed. Unlicensed contractors can only work on jobs with a cost to the homeowner of less than $500 and must inform the homeowner that they are not licensed.

    In addition to citing contractors for not possessing appropriate licenses, the CSLB also cited contractors for failure to carry workers compensation insurance and illegal advertising. Further, California law limits down payments to the lesser of ten percent or $1,000. Two contractors were cited for requesting excessive down payments.

    One contractor, an unlicensed tree service contractor, had been cited previously in a sting operation. He failed to show up for his court date.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    April 6, 2011 — April 6, 2011 - By Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis in the Haight Brown & Bonesteel Blog

    On February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.

    The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.


    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    July 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Coverage of the ongoing litigation concerning the Harmon Hotel continues to proliferate. Architectural Record and a number of other news outlets continue to provide additional details and coverage of the matter. Chief among the conditions alleged are improperly installed reinforcing steel inside link beams on 15 floors. MGM Claims that the conditions amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, while Perini (the builder) indicated in a July 12th statement that the buildings problems are related to the design, and the they are “fixable.”

    There is significant speculation that MGM Resorts International isn’t interested in repairing the hotel due to a glut of hotel rooms attendant to the troubled economy. In a statement Tuesday Perini reportedly stated that “Repairing and opening the Harmon would only create a greater glut of unused hotel rooms for MGM,” “If market conditions were better and MGM found that demand existed for the Harmon hotel rooms, MGM would not be claiming that the Harmon is unstable.”

    MGM asserts that Perini failed to ”properly construct” the project. Clark County’s Department of Development Services has reportedly asked MGM to provide a plan to fix the project by August 15th.

    The Harmon is part of the $8.5 billion CityCenter project that opened in the fourth quarter of 2009 and is jointly owned by MGM Resorts and Dubai World.

    Prior reports indicated that the owner (MGM) had considered razing the entire project. The future of the project remains uncertain.


    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Minnesota has replaced its Independent Contractor Exemption Certificate program with the Contractor Registration Pilot Project, according to an article in the Martindale-Hubble Legal Library by Michael B. Lapicola. Mr. Lapicola notes that “it will be a violation of the law to contract with or perform construction services for another person without first being registered with the Pilot Project, or to contract with or pay another person to perform construction services if the other person is not registered with the Pilot Project. There are, however, quite a few exceptions, including those who are currently registered with the earlier program. Additionally, independent contractors who do not register can avoid the fine (up to $2,000) by registering within thirty days of fines being levied. Individuals and firms that do not perform building construction or improvements are exempt from the hiring aspects of the statute.

    Minnesota’s goal is to “assist state agencies to investigate employee misclassification in the building industry.” Employees of construction firms do not individually register. Rather, the intent of the of law is to stop those who would “require any individual through coercion, misrepresentation or fraudulent means to adopt independent contractor status” or to “knowingly misrepresent or misclassify an individual as an independent contractor.”

    Read the full story…


    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    May 18, 2011 — May 18, 2011 - CDCoverage.com

    In Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. C-10-256 (S.D. Tex. April 28, 2011), insured Ewing was the general contractor for an athletic facility constructed for a school district. The school district sued Ewing alleging defective construction of the project. The underlying complaint included contract and negligence causes of action, and sought damages for the repair of the damages and loss of the use of the project. The complaint did not allege damage to any property other than the project itself. Ewing tendered its defense to its CGL insurer Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense and Ewing filed suit against Amerisure. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for Amerisure. Applying Texas law, the court held that all of the damages fell within the “contractual liability” exclusion precluding any duty to defend or indemnify.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    June 1, 2011 — Douglas Reiser in the Builders Counsel Blog

    Served with a lawsuit that you turned over to your insurer? Insurer refusing to defend you? Well, find some hope in this news. Washington’s IFCA has the claws to ensure that insurers perform their duties.

    Contractors heavily rely on the defense provisions of their Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies. In construction, a legal dispute can easily rear its head when you least expect it. Luckily, Washington registered contractors are required to maintain CGL insurance. That insurance often provides contractors with adequate legal defense in the event that they are sued.

    But, what if your insurer turns down the defense request? They might be staring at massive damages. A current Reiser Legal client, Australia Unlimited, Inc., recently won a large verdict against Hartford Insurance, after the insurer unreasonably denied their claim. The firm who represented Australia Unlimited Inc. in that case, Hackett Beecher and Hart, were successful in procuring a $5.43 Million verdict

    Read the full story…

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


    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Washington Township in Ohio has filed a lawsuit against Underground Utilities for their handling of construction fill on a road project. The City of Mansfield had hired the firm to improve road safety. The lawsuit is over the company’s actions in processing soil for fill, which they are doing on three vacant lots that are zoned for residential use. Washington Township Trustee Jack Butler told the Mansfield Journal that “what brought the lawsuit to a head was the fact that the contractor did not control the dust.” Subsequent receiving notices of zoning violations, the company began to move its operation to another site.

    Read the full story…


    Ohio Adopts Energy-Efficient Building Code

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In a compromise between environmental groups, who were looking for stricter standards, and homebuilders, who were trying to contain building costs, the state of Ohio has adopted buildings codes that will increase the energy efficiency of new homes. The estimated costs are about $1,100 with estimated annual savings of $230. According to Corey Roblee of the International Code Council, “It’s something needed in the state of Ohio.”

    The Ohio Home Builders Association opposed a proposal to adopt the guidelines of the International Code Council. Builders will be able to either follow the ICC guidelines or they can use the Ohio guidelines to meet the same energy efficiency. Vincent Squillace, the executive vice president of the OHBA, said, “We came up with an equivalent code that’s more strict but is about $2,000 cheaper per home to implement than the original code.”

    The new code will require that at least 75% of lighting must be high efficiency, increases the degree of insulation, and specifies more efficient windows, among other changes.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

    The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

    Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

    The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

    The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

    The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

    The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

    Read the court’s decision…


    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    As One World Trade Center rises, so does the price tag. After construction delays and cost overruns, the cost of the building at the site of the September 11 attacks has risen to $3.8 billion. Part of the expense of the skyscraper is the heavily reinforced base of the building. The elevator shafts are also heavily reinforced, all part of guarding against future terrorist attacks.

    In comparison, the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, cost only $1.5 billion, less than half the cost of One World Trade Center. As a result, the Port Authority does not see the building as being profitable in near future. In order to fund it, the agency is raising tolls on bridge and tunnel traffic.

    Currently, about the half the unfinished building is leased. Construction is expected to conclude in 2013.

    Read the full story…


    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


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

    June 15, 2011 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP

    On June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.

    Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.

    A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.

    The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.


    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    June 16, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Louisiana politicians are still working on a compromise in the state’s construction budget, as reported in the Times-Picayune. Rob Marrianneax, the chair of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, removed a $45 million request from Governor Bobby Jindal and added $4 million for projects that Jindal vetoed last year.

    Two senators have formed competing plans to fund redevelopment construction for New Orleans’s Methodist Hospital. Mitch Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans, hoped for $30 million dollars in state bonds. Senator Cynthia Willard-Lewis proposed an amendment that would supply $1.6 million, while Senator J.P. Morrell has an amendment that would supply $4 million.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of the lower court and has stayed, instead of dismissed, a claim of construction defects. A group of Victorville homeowners sued their homebuilder, K. Hovnanian Communities on a claim of construction defects. Hovnanian argued that under the procedures set forth in SB800, the suit should be dismissed, and that the claims should undergo arbitration. The trial agreed, dismissing the claims of 82 plaintiffs under a first motion, and then granted a second motion to dismiss, which affected a further 21 plaintiffs. The homeowners appealed.

    The Court noted that “the parties disagree about the standard of review,” with the Court determining that as the facts were not in dispute, they would use “an independent standard of review.”

    Reviewing the relevant statues, the Court concluded that the terms of the limited warranty set out the pre-litigation procedure, noting that “plaintiffs admit they did not comply with the limited warranty because they challenge its validity and enforceability.” The Court concluded that “plaintiffs’ action was premature.”

    The Court further noted that “a civil action will not be filed until after the contractual procedures have been followed.” Until these procedures have been followed, the Court said that they “decline to resolve issues about validity and enforceability.” However, as these issues could arise after the limited warranty procedures, the court stayed, rather than dismissed the claims.

    Read the court’s decision…