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

    Washington Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (SB 5536) The legislature passed a contractor protection bill that reduces contractors' exposure to lawsuits to six years from 12, and gives builders seven "affirmative defenses" to counter defect complaints from homeowners. Claimant must provide notice no later than 45 days before filing action; within 21 days of notice of claim, "construction professional" must serve response; claimant must accept or reject inspection proposal or settlement offer within 30 days; within 14 days following inspection, construction pro must serve written offer to remedy/compromise/settle; claimant can reject all offers; statutes of limitations are tolled until 60 days after period of time during which filing of action is barred under section 3 of the act. This law applies to single-family dwellings and condos.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Joyce Washington

    A license is required for plumbing, and electrical trades. Businesses must register with the Secretary of State.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Jefferson County Home Builders Association
    Local # 4947
    PO Box 1399
    Port Hadlock, WA 98339
    http://www.jeffcohomebuilders.com

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362


    Skagit-Island Counties Builders Association
    Local # 4960
    15571-A Peterson Rd
    Burlington, WA 98233
    http://www.sicba.org

    Home Builders Association of Spokane
    Local # 4966
    5813 E 4th Ave Ste 201
    Spokane, WA 99212
    http://www.shba.com

    MBuilders Association of King & Snohomish Counties
    Local # 4955
    335 116th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98004
    http://www.masterbuildersinfo.com

    San Juan Home Builders Chapter
    Local # 4938
    PO Box 1561
    Eastsound, WA 98245


    Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
    Local # 4944
    5251 Auto Ctr Way
    Bremerton, WA 98312
    http://www.kitsaphba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Joyce Washington

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    Amerisure Case to be Heard by Texas Supreme Court

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

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

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

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

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

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

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

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

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

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

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

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

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Water Is the Enemy

    Arizona Homeowners Must Give Notice of Construction Defect Claims

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

    Florida trigger

    No-Show Contractor Can’t Hide from Construction Defect Claim

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

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

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

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

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

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

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Defect Claims as Occurrences? Check Your State Laws

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

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

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

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

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

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

    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Construction Defect Lawsuits? There’s an App for That

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide
    Corporate Profile

    JOYCE WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Joyce Washington forensic architect building code expert witnessJoyce Washington forensic architect contractor expert witnessJoyce Washington forensic architect construction expert testimonyJoyce Washington forensic architect roofing and waterproofing expert witnessJoyce Washington forensic architect building consultant expertJoyce Washington forensic architect ada design expert witnessJoyce Washington forensic architect construction forensic expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Joyce, Washington

    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.


    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    July 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A new law in South Carolina, H 3375, fixes a loophole in that state’s statute of repose. State law puts a cap of eight years on construction defects, but the 2008 law that set that limit had a loophole that would allow for construction defect claims to start thirteen years after construction. The law also provides a cap on punitive damages.

    The measure was backed by the Carolinas Association of General Contractors. Their spokesperson said that the legislation “increases our state’s ability to be economically competitive and helps protect our members from frivolous lawsuits.”

    Read the full story…

    Read South Carolina H 3375…


    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Although the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine, it determined it did not apply to salvage coverage under an all-risk policy for a rain-damaged building. Fourth Street Place, LLC v. The Travelers Indemn. Co., 2011 Nev LEXIS 114 (Nev. Dec. 29, 2011).

    Fourth Street owned an office building which was insured by an all-risk policy issued by Travelers. Fourth Street hired Above It All Roofing to repair the roof of the office building. Above It All removed the waterproof membrane on the roof and prepared to replace the membrane the following week. Over the weekend, however, substantial rain hit. On Sunday, Above It All returned to cover the exposed portions of the roof with tarps, but wind later blew the tarps away. The building suffered significant interior damage as it continued to be exposed to the rain.

    Read the full story…

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


    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California construction industry sees Senate Bill 863 as a needed help to legitimate construction businesses. The bill introduces regulations that will help shut down fraudulent contractors and help reduce workers’ compensation fraud. John Upshaw of the Independent Roofing Contractors of California described the revenue lost to California and other states as “phenomenal,” saying that “we need to continue the coordinated efforts if we are to see true workers’ compensation reform.”

    Read the full story…


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

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

    In JTO, Inc. v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2010-L-062 (Ohio Ct. App. March 25, 2011), general contractor JTO was sued by hotel project owner Marriott for breach of contract and warranties seeking damages for the repair of construction defects resulting in moisture penetration property damage to interior components. JTO filed a third party complaint against subcontractor Farizel and also tendered its defense as an additional insured under Farizel’s State Auto CGL policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Census Bureau, HUD Show Declines in Residential Construction

    May 17, 2011 – CDJ Staff

    The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development released their summary of residential construction for April 2011 on May 17.

    Building permits for privately owned housing units were down 4% from last month and 12% from last year. Similarly, privately-owned housing starts were down 10% from March and 23% below the previous year.

    For further details, read the Census Bureau/HUD report


    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    July 22, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A year after residents were forced to leave Dolphin Towers in Sarasota, Florida because of concrete problems, some residents are defaulting on their obligations, abandoning their units. In June, the building’s insurer, Great American, rejected a claim, arguing that the building’s problems were due to latent defects, not covered under the policy. Repair estimates, previously put at $8.2 million, have now risen to $11.5 million. If homeowners cover this cost, it would require an assessment of about $100,000 for each unit.

    About thirty owners are in arrears on dues and fees. Charlotte Ryan, the president of the Dolphin Tower board, wrote to owners, that “the board will have no choice but to lien your property and pursue foreclosure if you do nothing to bring your delinquencies up to date.” However, as homeowners default, the funding for repairs is imperiled. The board has already spent more than $500,000 on shoring up the building and hiring consultants. Their lawyers, on the other hand, are working on a contingency basis.

    Read the full story…


    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

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

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

    Read the court’s decision…


    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    July 11, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Illinois Court of Appeals determined the insurer must defend allegations of property damage arising from faulty workmanship. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1443 (Ill. Ct. App. June, 20, 2011).

    Larsen was a subcontractor for Weather-Tite in a condominium building. Weather-Tite installed windows on the project and hired Larsen to apply sealant to the windows. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage within the complex.

    The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen, seeking contribution and alleging that Larsen was in breach of contract by failing to add Weather-Tite as an additional insured under Larsen’s CGL policy.

    Both Weather-Tite and Larsen tendered to Larsen’s insurer. Both tenders were denied because the insurer contended the complaints alleged only construction defects, and not “property damage” or an “occurrence” within the terms of the policy.

    The insurer filed suit for a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

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


    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

    August 16, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The court determined the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous and found coverage for the home owners in Platek v. Town of Hamburg, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. App. Div. July 6, 2012).

    The burst of a water main caused water damage to the insureds' basement. Allstate disclaimed coverage under exclusion 4 for losses caused by "[w]ater . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source . . . [,] includ[ing] water . . . which exerts pressure on or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residence premises."

    Another policy provision covered "sudden and accidental direct physical loss caused by fire, explosion or theft resulting from item []. . . 4 . . . ." Plaintiffs argued that this exception applied because their claimed loss was caused by an "explosion" of the water main.

    Read the full story…

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


    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    July 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Perception Construction Management v. Bell. The Bells hired PCM to build a log home, agreeing to play monthly invoices in full within ten days. The Bells paid the first four invoices in full, part of the fifth, and ceased payment after that. Beofre seventh invoice, the Bells terminated the contract and hired a new contractor. PCM filed a claim of lien and ceased work.

    The Bells responded that PCM was in breach of contract and had failed to fulfill the contract in a workmanlike manner. They claimed construction defects and in the lien suit, sought to include testimony from an architect and a plumber reviewing PCM’s work. The court only allowed the architect to testify as to whether the amount of the lien was reasonable. No testimony was permitted from the plumber.

    The Idaho Supreme Court concluded that the claims of construction defects were important to case and remanded it to the lower court for a new trial taking into evidence that Bell’s contention that PCM’s work was defective.

    Read the court’s decision


    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

    Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

    The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

    Read the full story…


    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court in Washington State has granted a summary judgment in Hiller v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. The Hillers bought a new home in Wenatchee, Washington and insured it with an “all risk” policy from Allstate. Subsequently, Mr. Hiller discovered that the carpet in the basement was saturated with water. Hiller notified Allstate who requested that he determine the source of the water intrusion. Hiller poured water into a downspout drain and found this caused water to leak into the home’s basement.

    Further investigation with the homes original excavation contractor revealed that “the end of the drain pipe was partially blocked by rocks and had been wrapped with fabric landscaping material.” Additionally, “a ‘T’ pipe installed at the foot of the drain was directing water toward the house’s concrete foundation.” Allstate denied the claim “under the policy’s surface water, subsurface water, inherent vice, and latent defect exlusions.” After the denial, Hiller “discovered that the foundation had not been treated with waterproof sealant and that several concrete form pins were still in place.”

    The court noted that “there is no genuine dispute about the cause of the claimed loss.” This left the court concluding that “the only relevant question for the purposes of the instant cross-motions for summary judgment is whether a loss caused by defective construction is covered under the Hillers’ ‘all risk’ insurance policy.” Under Washington’s “efficient proximate cause” rule, “where an insured risk itself sets into operation a chain of causation in which the last step may have en an excepted risk, the excepted risk will not defeat recovery.” The court found that a loss caused by defective construction is in fact covered under the policy, noting that “the policy does not contain an exclusion for defective construction.”

    The court concluded that the defective drain was not an inherent vice, as it “cannot properly be characterized as defects ‘inherent [in the] nature of the commodity which will cause it to deteriorate with a lapse of time.” Nor was it a latent defect, “one that could not have been discovered by inspection.” The court concluded that “both of the construction defects at issue could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection.”

    With these facts determined, the court found for the Hillers.

    Read the court»s decision…


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

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    On his recently started blog, Harry Kaladjian writes about construction defect litigation in California. He notes that after taking possession, homeowners sometimes notices problems such as “slab cracks in the garage, water leaking through the ceiling, warped floors, improper framing, cracking stucco, etc.” He goes on to note that once that happens, there are series of things homeowners must do.

    The first is to be concerned about the statute of limitations. Then, “once it has been established that defects exist, the homeowner must refer to the ‘Right to Repair Act’ and ‘Calderon Procedures.’” These, he notes set out the “pre-litigation procedures prior to filing a lawsuit.”

    Read the full story…


    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    May 26, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.

    The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“

    On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:

    “The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”

    On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”

    Read the court’s decision


    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Warren Township in New Jersey has waived building and electrical permit fees, up to $5,000, for businesses that create at least five new jobs. The fee reductions are available for construction in areas zones under various designations. Buildings that have received a zoning variance are not eligible. The Echoes-Sentinel notes that other towns in Somerset County, New Jersey have adopted similar ordinances.

    Read the full story…


    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