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

    Indiana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: According to SB45160, §IC 32-27-3-1&2 a claimant must provide written notice 60 days before filing an action. Within 21 days after service of the notice, the construction professional must serve a written response. Claimant must file list of known construction defects, description, and the construction professional responsible for each alleged defect (to the extent known).


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Carroll County Indiana

    License required for plumbing. All other licensing is done at the local county level.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Howard County Inc
    Local # 1532
    PO Box 1187
    Kokomo, IN 46903
    http://www.hbahowardco.com

    Builders Association of Greater Lafayette
    Local # 1548
    PO Box 5795
    Lafayette, IN 47903
    http://www.bagl.info

    East Central Indiana Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1556
    PO Box 1072
    Muncie, IN 47308


    Henry County Chapter
    Local # 1598
    PO Box 925
    New Castle, IN 47362


    Home Builders Association of Fort Wayne
    Local # 1528
    305 W Main St
    Fort Wayne, IN 46802
    http://www.hbafortwayne.com

    Wayne County Builders Association
    Local # 1570
    PO Box 1591
    Richmond, IN 47375
    http://www.wcbaonline.com

    Jasper County Home Builders Association
    Local # 1550
    511 4th Ave. NW
    Demotte, IN 46310
    http://www.jaspercountyhba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Carroll County Indiana

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

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

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

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

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Florida trigger

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

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

    Courts Are Conflicted As To Whether "Good Faith" Settlement Determinations Can Be Reviewed Via Writ Petition Or Appeal

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

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

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

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Florida Law: Defects in Infrastructure Improvements Not Covered in Home Construction Warranties

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

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

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

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

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

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

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

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

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

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

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

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

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

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Timing of Insured’s SIR Payment Has No Effect on Non-Participating Insurer’s Equitable Contribution to Co-Insurer

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

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

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

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

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

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

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

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93
    Corporate Profile

    CARROLL COUNTY INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Carroll County, Indiana Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Carroll County Indiana forensic architect engineering consultantCarroll County Indiana forensic architect construction expert witness public projectsCarroll County Indiana forensic architect consulting general contractorCarroll County Indiana forensic architect architectural expert witnessCarroll County Indiana forensic architect civil engineer expert witnessCarroll County Indiana forensic architect engineering expert witnessCarroll County Indiana forensic architect eifs expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Carroll County, Indiana

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    September 1, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The underlying plaintiff’s allegations contended the contractor was in breach of contract for construction defects caused in building her home. Accordingly, the court found no coverage.See Nat’l Builders and Contractors Ins. Co. v. Slocum, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81694 (S.D. Miss. July 26, 2011).

    Slocum Construction LLC sold a home it built to Laura Peterson. Subsequently, Peterson filed suit, alleging a breach of the contract and seeking rescission and cancellation of the contract. Peterson further alleged at least thirty-three specific defects in the construction of the house.

    Slocum tendered to its insurer, National Builders and Contractors Insurance Company (NBCI). NBCI filed suit for a declaratory judgment.

    Read the full story…

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


    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    June 19, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insurer’s duty to defend a developer sued by purchasers of homes for damages for diminution in value of homes was at issue in Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Academy Dev., Inc., 2012 WL 1382459 (5th Cir. April 20, 2012).

    In the underlying action, plaintiffs alleged the developer knew when it sold the homes that the lake walls were falling and that water was leaking from the lakes onto adjacent home sites. They sought damages for diminution in the value of their homes resulting from the defective lakes. The action was tried in 2008, and the jury returned a verdict for the developer.

    Mid-Continent initially defended under a reservation of rights.

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

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

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

    Read the court’s decision…


    Product Exclusion: The Big Reason Behind The Delay of LEED 2012

    July 10, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    By now, you have probably heard that the USGBC has decided to delay implementation of its previously named “LEED 2012” rating system. What you might not know is exactly why this is happening. Rest assured that the decision was not made willy nilly ?Äì LEED 2012 had many industrial groups running for the hills.

    I have spent the past few weeks reading a number of articles on the backlash. LEED 2012 was intended to create a seismic shift; it was not a mere update. A strict focus on reduction of chemicals, created mass panic that a large number of material providers’ products would essentially be banned from green projects ?Äì meaning most local, state and federal projects.

    Read the full story…

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


    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


    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    March 28, 2012 — Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law North Carolina

    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) have recently announced their approval of two new safety standards to enhance construction site safety.

    The two new standards, which are set to take effect during June 2012, are the ANSI/ASSE A10.1-2011 Pre-Project and Pre-Task Safety and Health Planning for Construction and Demolition Operations, and the ANSI/ASSE A10.26-2011 Emergency Procedures for Construction and Demolition Sites.

    The new A10.1-2011 standard was designed to assist construction owners, contractors, and designers by ensuring that safety and health planning were standard parts of their pre-construction planning. It is also intended to help owners of construction sites to establish a process for evaluating constructor candidates with regard to their safety and health performance planning.

    The A10.26 standard applies to emergency situations, including fires, collapses, and hazardous spills. The standard deals with emergency rescue, evacuation, and transportation of injured workers, and also plans for coordinating with emergency medical facilities ahead of potential disasters.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.


    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.

    The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.

    Read the full story…


    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    April 20, 2011 — April 20, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.

    When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.

    The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…


    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    California added about 8,900 construction jobs in January, 2012, as compared to December, 2011, leading the nation in the number of added construction jobs. Thirty-four other states also saw added construction jobs. A year prior, only twenty-eight states added construction jobs. The Associated General Contractors of America analyzed the monthly report from the Labor Department. Ken Simonson, the chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America noted that “the gains this January partly reflect very mild weather this winter and exceptionally cold and snowy conditions a year before.”

    Read the full story…


    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    October 28, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged property damage and bodily injury in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Harbor Walk Dev., LLC, No. 2:10cv312 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2011).

    Homeowners sued the insured, Harbor Walk, in three lawsuits, alleging the Chinese drywall installed in their homes emitted sulfides and other noxious gases. This caused corrosion and damage to the air-conditioning and ventilation units, refrigeration coils, copper tubing, faucets, metal surfaces, electrical appliances and other personal items. The homeowners also alleged the compounds emitted by the drywall caused bodily injury, such as allergic reactions, headaches, etc.

    Harbor Walk’s insurer, Evanston, filed for a declaratory judgment that the pollution exclusion precluded coverage.

    Read the full story...

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


    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A group of Des Moines home builders is building two homes for low-income families. The homes are being constructed to meet the National Association of Home Builders’ emerald standard for green construction. According to the article in the Des Moines Register, the homes will be finished by the end of August.

    Read the full story…


    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

    Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

    Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

    After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

    Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

    Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Martha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.

    In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.

    Read the full story…


    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    July 12, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    If an earthquake hit Las Vegas, the Harmon Tower would not withstand it. A report from Weidlinger Associates told MGM Resorts that “in a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower.” The inspection came at the request of county officials, according to the article in Forbes.

    According to Ronald Lynn, directory of the building division in the county’s development services division, “these deficiencies, in their current state, make the building uninhabitable.” The county is concerned about risks to adjacent buildings.

    MGM Resorts is currently in litigation, separate from the stability issues, with Perini Corp., the builders of Harmon Tower.

    Read the full story…


    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Tutor Pernini claims that CityCenter is portraying the construction firm as “the scum of the earth” in an attempt to influence eventual jurors, according to an article at Vegas Inc. The contractor’s attorneys have requested information regarding the public relations efforts of MGM Resorts and CityCenter, characterizing CityCenter’s PR as a “litigation spin doctor.”

    CityCenter has requested that at least one subpoena be canceled. Judge Elizabeth Gonzales has already allowed one to go through, although she has noted that Perini cannot request documents from CityCenter’s lawyers to the litigation consultants under attorney/client privilege. Tutor Perini claims that in 2010, Patricia Glaser, who has represented CityCenter, said her goal was to portray Perini as “the scum of the earth,” and make that certain that judges and juries would not “adopt the world view espoused by the opposing party.”

    Read the full story…


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

    August 4, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Dragas Management Corp. v. Hanover Insurance Co., No. 2:10cv547 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), claimant residential home general contractor and developer DMC filed for arbitration against insured drywall supply and install subcontractor Porter-Blaine seeking damages for (1) the replacement of defective Chinese drywall, and (2) the repair of resulting property to other components of the DMC homes and homeowners’ personal property in seventy-four homes. Porter-Blaine’s CGL insurer Citizens and excess insurer Hanover defended Porter-Blaine in the DMC arbitration.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    November 18, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

    The policies held by Bellevue Master, the general contractor, required it to be an additional insured under any subcontractor’s liability policy. Northwest Tower Crane Services was a subcontractor. Bellevue Master LLC, faxed a message that Northwest could continue to be a subcontractor on the project if it complied with Bellevue Master’s insurance requirements. Northwest contacted its insurance broker and requested an insurance certificate be issued to Bellevue Master so that it would be an additional insured under Northwest’s policy.

    Read the full story…

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