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

    Florida Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: In Title XXXIII Chapter 558, the Florida Legislature establishes a requirement that homeowners who allege construction defects must first notify the construction professional responsible for the defect and allow them an opportunity to repair the defect before the homeowner canbring suit against the construction professional. The statute, which allows homeowners and associations to file claims against certain types of contractors and others, defines the type of defects that fall under the authority of the legislation and the types of housing covered in thelegislation. Florida sets strict procedures that homeowners must follow in notifying construction professionals of alleged defects. The law also establishes strict timeframes for builders to respond to homeowner claims. Once a builder has inspected the unit, the law allows the builder to offer to repair or settle by paying the owner a sum to cover the cost of repairing the defect. The homeowner has the option of accepting the offer or rejecting the offer and filing suit. Under the statute the courts must abate any homeowner legal action until the homeowner has undertaken the claims process. The law also requires contractors, subcontractors and other covered under the law to notify homeowners of the right to cure process.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Taylor County Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Panama City (Fla)
    Local # 1042
    PO Box 979
    Panama City, FL 32402


    Northeast Florida Builders Association
    Local # 1024
    103 Century 21 Dr Ste 100
    Jacksonville, FL 32216
    http://www.nefba.com

    Forgotten Coast Builders Assoc
    Local # 1015
    PO Box 1005
    Port Saint Joe, FL 32457
    http://www.forgottencoastbuilder.com/

    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055
    http://www.buildcolumbiacounty.com

    Builders Association of North Central FL
    Local # 1020
    2217 NW 66th Ct
    Gainesville, FL 32653
    http://www.bancf.com

    Florida Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 1000
    PO Box 1259
    Tallahassee, FL 32302
    http://www.fhba.com

    Home Builders Association of West Florida
    Local # 1048
    4400 Bayou Blvd Suite 45
    Pensacola, FL 32503
    http://www.westfloridabuilders.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Taylor County Florida

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

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

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

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

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

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

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

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

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

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

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

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

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

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

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

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

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

    Florida trigger

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

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

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

    Construction Defect Destroys Home, Forty Years Later

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations

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

    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

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

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

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

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

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Lower Court “Eminently Reasonable” but Wrong in Construction Defect Case

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

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

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy
    Corporate Profile

    TAYLOR COUNTY FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Taylor County Florida forensic architect window expert witnessTaylor County Florida forensic architect forensic architectTaylor County Florida forensic architect construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessTaylor County Florida forensic architect building envelope expert witnessTaylor County Florida forensic architect expert witness windowsTaylor County Florida forensic architect construction expert witness consultantTaylor County Florida forensic architect construction claims expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Taylor County, Florida

    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…


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

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has dismissed an appeal of a summary judgment in the case Bella Investments, Inc. v. Multi Family Services, Inc. MFS was hired by Bella to be the general contractor for a hotel in Gardendale, Alabama. MFS hired various subcontractors, including the architect for the project. After completion of the hotel in April, 2006, Bella made requests for MFS to repair cracked floor tiles.

    In August, 2008, Bella sued MFS, the architect, and various fictitiously named defendants. Subsequently, Bella amended its complaint, naming some of the fictitiously named defendants.

    MFS in turn claimed that Bella’s claims were void under the statute of limitations and that Bella was in beach of contact by failing to pay MFS the full amount owed. MFS moved for summary judgment under the statute of limitations, which was granted by the court.

    Bella requested that the court “alter, amend, or vacate its summary judgment order.” When this was denied, Bella appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Appeals refused to vacate the summary judgment as claims that form part of the case against MFS are also part of Bella’s claims against the other defendants. For this reason, the court upheld the summary judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding no coverage due to exclusions from the all-risk policy for losses related to mold, rot and condensation. Koskovich v. Am Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 581 (Minn. Ct. App. June 25, 2012).

    In 1978, the insureds purchased a home that was built in 1904. From 1991 to 1995, they remodeled, which included rotating the house 45 degrees, removing a wing and adding a new section. Polypropylene vapor barriers were installed, with pinholes for ventilation.

    In 2008, water was observed on an interior floor. An investigation revealed that the sheathing under the siding and the house's framing were wet and rotten, requiring removal and replacement of the siding and studs. Repairs were made and a claim was submitted to American Family Mutual Insurance Company.

    American's structural engineer inspected and determined that moisture was likely caused by condensation of water vapor where the vapor barrier was held tight to the sheathing and by inward water migration from wet siding during rainy periods through the vapor-barrier perforations. The structural engineer opined that, although the home's framing was deteriorated and structurally compromised, it did not appear as though the home was in imminent danger of collapse.

    American denied coverage.

    Read the full story…

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


    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    September 1, 2011 — CJD Staff

    Citing public safety concerns and the cost of repair, MGM Resorts International is seeking to demolish the unfinished hotel tower. The company has a few hurdles to go through before they start laying the charges to implode the structure. Any plans would have to be approved by not only Clark County officials, but also the district court has an order blocking any activity during litigation between MGM and the general contractor on the project, Perini Building Company.

    Architectural Record reports that MGM states it would take “approximately 18 months to conduct test and come up with an approved, permitted design to fix the Harmon.” MGM feels that repairs would then take another two to three years. Perini contends that they could “provide stamped drawings detailing all necessary repairs within three months.” They attribute MGM’s desire to demolish the building as “buyer’s remorse.”

    Read the full story…


    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Jeff City Industries was the general contractor for a sewer system improvement project in Branson, Missouri. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. United HRB Gen. Contractors, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145666 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2011). Branson sued Jeff City, alleging breach of the construction contract for the project. The claims included improperly bedded sewer piping, improper aligning portions of trenching for the sewer piping, improper service line connections to the sewer piping, etc.

    Read the full story…

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


    Contractor Sues License Board

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

    Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

    Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

    Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A federal judge dismissed a coverage lawsuit brought by Mid Continent Casualty Company against its insured, Greater Midwest Builders Ltd.

    Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action in response to a suit filed in Johnson County District Court, seeking a judicial determination that it had no coverage obligation for claims asserted against its insured. This case was stayed until the state court action entered judgment against the insured. The prevailing parties then commenced a garnishment action against the plaintiff, and another insurance company, in state court in Missouri. The court was asked whether it should lift the stay and proceed with the case, or decline jurisdiction in favor of resolution in the Missouri state court.

    The court granted the motion to dismiss holding that proceeding with the case would lead to protracted, piecemeal litigation, while deferring to the Missouri state court would decide all the claims involved in the dispute.

    Read the court’s decision…


    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Energy Commission has approved new energy efficiency standards for new homes and commercial buildings. The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are set to go into effect on January 1, 2014, and will require 30% more energy efficiency for non-residential construction and 25% more for homes. The standards do not affect hospitals, nursing homes, or prisons.

    Buildings covered under the standard will have to have roofs that ready for the installation of solar panels. Additionally, non-residential buildings will require high-performance windows, advanced lighting controls, and cool-roof technologies. Residential requirements include insulated hot-water pipes, whole house fans, and more efficient windows.

    The new standards are expected to add 3,500 new building industry jobs. One thing these construction workers won’t be building are power plants, since over the next thirty years, the standards are expected to save as much as six power plants.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    June 10, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Linda Halderman (R-Fresno) has introduced a bill which would require lawyers soliciting clients for construction defect cases to provide their prospective clients with a statement including that sellers may be required to disclose that they were engaged in a construction lawsuit. Further, the bill would require lawyers to disclose that they cannot guarantee financial recovery.

    Halderman was quoted by The Business Journal as saying, “Lawsuit abuse has been very damaging, especially to homeowners in the Valley.” Halderman hopes that her bill will discourage class action lawsuits against builders and that this will protect jobs in the construction industry.

    Read the full story…


    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Writing on his firm’s blog, Justin Stark discusses recent changes in construction defect claims in Oregon where, as he points out, “courts in Oregon have been lowering legal hurdles that construction defect plaintiffs must overcome in bringing their cases.” He cites a case in which water damage was discovered more than six years after construction was complete. The owners claimed breach of contract and negligence. The trial court found for the contractor, who argued “that there was no ‘special relationship’ with the owners that could support the negligence claim.”

    This was overturned on appeal, with the court concluding that if there was a violation of the building code, then the negligence claim could stand. This was appealed to the Oregon Supreme court which concluded that “neither a special relationship nor a statutory standard of care, such as the building code, is necessary to bring a negligence claim here.”

    Stark notes that “many forms of construction contract incorporate the phrase ‘workmanlike,’ which implicates the ‘common law standard of care’ in negligence law.

    Read the full story…


    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    June 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.

    In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.

    The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.

    Read the court’s decision


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

    November 7, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Our post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report on recent developments in the same case where the court determined, despite earlier finding the insurer owed a defense, it had no duty to indemnify. Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012).

    Hendricks contracted to “prepare the site and supply and install concrete, tamped concrete, and colored concrete” at several service stations. The owner sued Hendricks, alleging the concrete “was defective and/or the work performed was not done in a workman-like manner and resulted in damages, and will require replacement.”

    Pekin Insurance Company agreed to defend Hendricks subject to a reservation of rights.

    Read the full story…

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


    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    July 8, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    A select group of Senators have launched a marketing campaign for the BUILD Act. If this is the first you are hearing about the BUILD Act, do not fret. The Act still has a long way to go, but if successful it would bring a national infrastructure bank.

    I have been fascinated with the concept of a national infrastructure bank for quite some time. The idea has been around since the Clinton years ? and perhaps beyond. The Act’s purpose is to create a national bank (American Infrastructure Financing Authority) to provide loans and loan guarantees to encourage private investment in upgrading America’s infrastructure. For a number of years, we have seen similar legislation float around Congress. But, none of those initiatives have gained as much traction as BUILD.

    Read the full story…

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


    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    August 11, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Seattle Times reports that a transit construction project has uncovered about twenty-five gravestones. The area was historically sensitive, as it is in territory once occupied by the Puyallup Tribe. At current report, no human remains have been found and the article cites the project?s archeological consultant as describing the gravestones as “not historically significant.”

    Read the full story…


    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    April 25, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Cousel

    Contractual fairness ? it is part of my mantra. If you read the blog, you probably know that I preach brevity, balance and clarity in contracting. The State of Washington did well to finally eliminate something that has angered me for quite some time ? unfair indemnification.

    One of my favorite construction contract revisions is mutual indemnification. Many “up the chain” contractors and owners are going to stick you with a unilateral indemnification clause that protects them for just about everything, including their own fumbling of a project. Adding mutual indemnification provides some balance, and keeps parties reliant upon each other for success on the job site.

    Read the full story…

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


    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Sunset Lanai apartment building in West Hollywood, California has its fans, it also has its detractors. Designed by Edward H. Flickett and built in 1952 by George Alexander, the building isn’t wearing its years lightly. Its owner has opposed a move by the West Hollywood Preservation Commission that the building is a “local cultural resource.” Instead, Edwin Silver, the building’s owner says the group has overstated the building’s significance. His lawyer points to “design and construction flaws,” and says the building is prone to flooding and leaks. Repairs to the building have an estimated cost of $2.3 million, according to the L.A. Times.

    The West Hollywood City Council decided to table the question of a historical designation as that might impede repairs. However, they did decide that if Silver seeks to demolish the building, they will grant the protection.

    Read the full story…


    Pipes May Be Defective, But Owners Lack Standing

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The United States District Court in Minnesota has determined that Steven and Cecilia Thundander cannot make a class-action claim against Uponor, Inc. over the plumbing in their home, as they do not have Article III standing. In this situation, the alleged defect is that Uponor made fraudulent claims that the pipes met National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) standards for use in potable water systems. Uponor submitted samples of other pipes, and their substitution was discovered when the NSF made an inspection of the manufacturing facility. The court noted that “the Thunanders contend that Uponor failed to inform homeowners, plumbers and consumers that it had been selling pipe that failed to meet NSF toxicity requirements at the time of sale and installation.”

    The Court noted that the Thunanders have not tested their piping to determine if they “demonstrate toxicity or lack of compliance with the NSF 61 standards,” noting also that the Complaint seeks to require Uponor to instruct the plaintiffs on “how to test the piping and water to determine the level of risk.” Lacking testing, the Court could not find that the Thundanders have defective pipes. The Court found that the “Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing as to their product liability claims.”

    The Court also concluded that it could not determine if the Plaintiff’s warranty actions could not be applied, as they “have failed to allege a plausible defect.” Even in the presence of a defect, the Court noted that more than eight years had passed before the filing of the suit, when the warranties under both Indiana and Minnesota law have a four-year statute of limitations. The Court also rejected the Thunanders tort claims, once again because “Plaintiffs have not tested their pipes,” noting that “a tort requires the existence of an injury.”

    In conclusion, Judge Nelson rejected the entirety of the complaint, granting the motions to dismiss by the defendants. However, despite the problems with the Thunanders’ claims, she found that they were not “patently frivolous or groundless.” Therefore, she denied attorney fees requested by one of the defendants.

    Read the court’s decision…


    School Sues over Botched Pool

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Daily American reports that the Somerset Area School District has alleged that the contractor who repaired and renovated the district’s swimming pool “botched” the job. Now the school has filed a civil case in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas. The contractor, Wilson Construction Co. would prefer the matter to be settled in binding arbitration.

    The school district alleges that the surface installed by Wilson Construction cracked and bubbled due to improper installation. The manufacturer of the waterproofing system, Dryvit Systems, tested the installation and concluded it was an installation failure instead of a product defect. Dryvit told the district that the exterior walls would have be removed.

    The school district paid Wilson Construction $591,081 for their work. In their lawsuit, they are seeking $594,596 to cover the cost of draining the pool and repairing it.

    Read the full story…