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

    Alabama Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Although there is case law precedent for right to repair, Title 6 Article 13A states action must be commenced within 2 years after cause and not more than 13 years after completion of construction.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Cottonton Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Alabama
    Local # 0100
    PO Box 241305
    Montgomery, AL 36124
    http://www.hbaa.org

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117
    http://www.gmhba.org

    Home Builders Association of Phenix City
    Local # 0172
    1808 Opelika Road
    Phenix City, AL 36867


    South Alabama Home Builders Association
    Local # 0102
    PO Box 190
    Greenville, AL 36037


    Lee Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0136
    528 Lafayette Pl
    Auburn, AL 36830


    Tallapoosa Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0186
    714 Commerce Drive
    Alexander City, AL 35010


    Enterprise Home Builders Association
    Local # 0133
    PO Box 310861
    Enterprise, AL 36331



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Cottonton Alabama

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

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

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Destruction of Construction Defect Evidence Leads to Sanctions against Plaintiff

    Construction Defect Destroys Home, Forty Years Later

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    Loss Caused by Seepage of Water Not Covered

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

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

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

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

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

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

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

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

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

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

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

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

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

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

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

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    San Diego Construction Defect Claim Settled for $2.3 Million

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

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

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

    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

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

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    Preparing for Trial on a Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code section 895, et seq.

    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain

    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Plans Go High Tech

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes
    Corporate Profile

    COTTONTON ALABAMA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cottonton, Alabama Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cottonton'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
    Cottonton, Alabama

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Hawaii State Senate voted down Senate Bill 2692. Had it been passed, the State Building Code Council would have been abolished and building codes would have become the responsibility of county governments. The bill was opposed by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Their director of code development, Wanda Edwards said that the bill “would have undermined key components that are essential to an effective state building code regime.”

    Read the full story…


    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A settlement agreement between Conti Electric and Westgate Resorts has lead to a delay in starting the trial over construction defect claims and billing disputes over Hilton Grand Vacations a time share tower in Las Vegas. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the dispute includes claims of $23.3 million owed to the general contractor against which the developer has placed $30 million in construction defect claims.

    Read the full story…


    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    September 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has rejected a motion by a homeowner in a dispute with the contractor who built an extension to his home. In McCracken v. Pirvulete, Mr. McCracken filed a mechanics lien after Mr. Pirvulete failed to complete payment. The matter went to trial with a series of exhibits that showed “the contractual relationship was strained and the parties disagreed over performance and payment.” As a result of the trial, the court awarded Mr. McCracken, the contractor, $1,922.22.

    Mr. Pirvulete appealed, contending that the court had not allowed his daughter to act as a translator, that the court had failed to give him sufficient time to present his case, that the mechanics lien should have been dismissed, and several other claims, all before a formal judgment was issued. After the court formalized its judgment and rejected the appeal, Mr. Pirvulete appealed again.

    The appeals court found that Mr. Pirvulete did not provide an adequate record for review. The court dismissed Mr. Pirvulete’s claims. The court notes that Mr. Pirvulete claimed that a request for a discovery period was denied, however, he has provided neither the request nor the denial. The trial court has no record of either.

    Nor was there a record of a request that Mr. Pirvulete’s daughter provide translation. The court notes, “so far as we can glean from the record provided, the Register of Actions states, ‘Trial to proceed without Romanian Interpreter for Defendant; Daughter present to interpret if needed.’” Additionally, the court found that “there has been no showing that his facility with the English language is or was impaired in any way or that there was any portion of any proceeding, which he did not understand.”

    Further, the appeals court found there were no grounds for a new trial, despite Mr. Pirvulete’s filings. The court concluded, “The owner has failed to provide a record adequate for review of most, if not all, of the claims of error. Some issues are not cognizable because they relate to entirely separate proceedings, and not the trial below. To the limited extent that the claims are examinable, the owner has made no showing of error.” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court against Mr. Pirvulete.

    Read the court’s decision…


    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Echoing Businessweek, the Las Vegas Sun agrees that the Nevada HOA scandal is the “king of all Vegas real estate scams,” and says that the Nevada legislatures should take action. The Sun notes that the case involves only 12 out of 2,356 HOAs in Southern Nevada.

    To date, 25 people have plead guilty in the case. At the center were an attorney and contractor who allegedly referred work to each other. To enable this, they assembled a wider conspiracy of people who enriched by the process. In the words of the Sun, those involved “upended the concept of a ‘common interest’ community.”

    Read the full story…


    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    July 19, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Lockton Companies, LLC, the largest privately held independent insurance broker, has announced that it is expanding its construction and design team with the hiring of Karen Erger and Tom Miller.

    Ms. Erger will provide professional liability practice management, loss prevention, contract and complex claims management consulting services to Lockton's architectural, engineering and construction clients in her role as Vice President, Director of Practice Management. Her background includes construction litigation at a leading construction law firm, professional liability claims defense and claims consulting for major professional liability underwriters.

    Miller joins Lockton as a Senior Vice President within the Design and Construction Unit. His role will be dedicated to serving the needs of engineering, architecture and construction firms performing services around the globe. He has spent more than 15 years concentrating on professional liability for design professionals and contractors in multiple roles. He previously managed the professional liability underwriting of one of the largest construction insurers and has developed numerous manuscript insurance products as well as focused on strategic planning to enhance business unit opportunities.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    August 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    It’s Tuesday, which means it ’s the middle of your work week. Tuesday is a great time to take an hour to look over your contracts, while the crews are pushing through their scheduled work. Today’s food for thought: How do you use your contract to reduce your litigation burden?

    Your contract should do many things. It should discuss the scope of work, scheduling of work, quality of work, coverage for liabilities and conditions and timeliness for payment. But often overlooked is how your contract can lend to dispute resolution.

    Commonly, you will see a simple provision that covers governing law, venue for disputes and the awarding of attorneys’ fees. But you can do better. Remember, a contract is enforced to the maximum extent possible in Washington state.

    Read the full story…

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


    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    April 25, 2011 — April 25, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    The city of El Paso has recently increased surety bonds required of contractors from $10,000 to $50,000, according to the El Paso Times. Proponents of the increase believe it was necessary to protect homeowners from fly-by-night builders, while opponents argue that the increase will have an adverse effect on an industry in that is already suffering due to the economic slowdown.

    Arguments for and against the increase have been flooding the blogosphere with their views. Christian Dorobantescu on the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog claims that “only about 15% of the city’s 2,500 contractors had been able to secure a higher bond to remain eligible for work after the new requirements were announced.” However, insurance companies have a different take. “From a surety broker standpoint, most contractors will be able qualify for the bond; some will just have to pay higher premium rates to obtain it,” a recent post on the Surety1 blog argues.

    While the increased bond may help homeowners deal with construction defect claims, it is not clear what effect it will have on builders in El Paso.

    Read more from the El Paso Times…

    Read more from the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog…

    Read more from the Surety1 Blog…


    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Toll Brothers has announced that their fourth-quarter net income is $2.35 per share, which they attribute in part to an income tax benefit. Their revenue, at $632.8 million, easily exceeded analysts’ projections of $565.1 million. Additionally, their number of signed contracts jumped seventy percent while their cancellation rate dropped nearly half to 4.9 percent.

    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…


    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”

    Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

    Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”

    On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    June 16, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Kitsap Sun reports that Gig Harbor, a town in the area near Tacoma, Washington, has had a 60% increase in building permit applications as compared to 2010. May, 2011 had as many permits issued for single-family residences in Gig Harbor as were issued for all of 2010. Additionally, a Safeway shopping center on Point Fosdick is described by Dick Bower, Gig Harbor Building and Fire Safety Director, as “a huge project and it’s going to bring in quite a bit of revenue.” He called the increase in building “economic recovery at the grassroots level.”

    Bower said that the building officials in other towns have also seen upswings in construction. He anticipates more activity in the future.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Vertex Pharmaceuticals is poised to become the holder of Boston’s biggest commercial lease, paying $72.5 million for 1.1 million square feet on Boston’s waterfront. Vertex’s new buildings are still under construction, but the plans have spurred other development in the Fan Pier area, according to the New York Times. The Times quotes Mary A. Burke, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that the Vertex project gives “a big push” to the “momentum for economic growth.”

    The Fallon Company is building Vertex’s new laboratory and office space. They are separately planning to build a high-rise with 150 luxury condominium units. According to Joseph Fallon, the chief executive and president of the Fallon Company, there is already a waiting list of 50 buyers for the condominiums.

    Across the street from the Vertex site, a group including Morgan Stanley and Boston Global Investors is planning a 23-block mixed use project that would include 1.2 million square feet of retail space. Additionally, the New England Development and the Hanover Group is building a 356-unit apartment building at the adjacent Pier 4.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    OSHA calculates that for each 33,000 active construction workers, one will die on the job each year, making their risk over the course of their careers at one out of every 200 workers. This puts it many times over OSHA’s definition of “significant risk” of 1 death per 1,000 workers over the course of their careers. According to an article in People’s World, “the main risk of death is from falls.”

    At a talk at the American Public Health Association’s meeting, one expert noted that “construction workers make up 6 percent to 8 percent of all workers, but account for 20 percent of all deaths on the job every year.”

    Read the full story…


    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.

    The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.

    The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.

    The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”

    The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    March 8, 2011 — March 8, 2011, Colorado Construction Litigation

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently concluded that the “owned property exclusion” applied to bar coverage for claims of property damage. See Panico v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2011 WL 322830 (10th Cir. 2011). In Panico, the plaintiffs sold property in Aspen, Colorado to the Taylors, who sued the Panicos upon discovering the property was not as represented. After refusing to defend, the Panicos sued State Farm for breach of contract. The district court concluded that the Taylors’ claims were not covered under the Panicos insurance policies and granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

    Mr. Panico built the house on the property as well as several additions to the house. As the Taylors lived in Florida, they primarily relied on their real estate agent and an inspector to ensure the property was acceptable. According to their complaint, the Taylors discovered that the house was “virtually uninhabitable due to serious design and construction defects, mold, rodents, and drainage problems.” Id. at *1. In their complaint, the Taylors asserted three claims for relief against the Panicos based upon misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the condition of the property.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com


    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    December 20, 2012 — Heather Anderson , Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    Judge Paul King of the Douglas County District Court recently confirmed that subcontractors in residential construction owe an independent duty, separate and apart from any contractual duties, to act without negligence in the construction of a home in Colorado.  See Order, dated September 7, 2010, Sunoo v. Hickory Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2007CV1866; see alsoCosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983); A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005).  He also verified that the holding in the B.R.W. Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004)[1]  case does not prohibit general contractors, such as Hickory Homes, from enforcing a subcontractor’s independent duty to act without negligence in the construction of a home. 

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Ms. Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com