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

    Texas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 730 amended the Texas Property Code by adding Title 16 and amending chapter 27. Overseen by the Texas Residential Construction Commission (TRCC) the code asserts that a contractor is not liable for any percentage of damages caused by failure to take reasonable action to mitigate damages or take reasonable action to maintain the residence. It also limits damages, requires written notification and response for right of repair and defines warranty periods. Additionally, SB 754 states“(5-10 Sec. 27.107) a contractor may assert as an affirmative defense to an allegation of a defect made in a complaint filed under this subchapter that the defect is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the home.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Cibolo Texas

    No state license is required, however, general contractors must get permits at the local level. Separate boards license HVAC, and plumbing trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Builders Association of Greater San Antonio
    Local # 4560
    3625 Paesanos Parkwary
    San Antonio, TX 78231
    http://www.sabuilders.com

    Greater New Braunfels Home Builders Association
    Local # 4503
    625 W San Antonio St
    New Braunfels, TX 78130
    http://www.newbraunfelshomebuilders.com

    Galveston Area Builders & Remodelers Association
    Local # 4533
    P O Box 1037
    Santa Fe, TX 77517
    http://www.galvestonbuilders.org/

    Greater Houston Builders Association
    Local # 4536
    9511 W Sam Houston Pkwy N
    Houston, TX 77064
    http://www.ghba.org

    Texas Hill Country Home Builders Association
    Local # 4580
    1444 Sidney Baker St
    Kerrville, TX 78028
    http://www.hillcountrybuilders.org

    Home Builders Association of SE Texas
    Local # 4515
    5655 Eastex Freeway Ste M6A
    Beaumont, TX 77706
    http://www.hbaset.org

    Builders Association of Victoria
    Local # 4572
    5105 E Airline Rd
    Victoria, TX 77904
    http://www.vctbuilders.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Cibolo Texas

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

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

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

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

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

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

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

    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

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

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    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 Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Ensuing Loss Found Ambiguous, Allowing Coverage

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

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

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

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

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

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Insurer Settles on Construction Defect Claim

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

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

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    California Supreme Court Binds Homeowner Associations To Arbitration Provisions In CC&Rs

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Water Is the Enemy

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Pictorial Construction Terminology Dictionary — A Quick and Helpful Reference

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

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

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Park District Sues over Leaky Roof

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Alleging Construction Defects Pled as Breach of Contract

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

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

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

    CIBOLO TEXAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cibolo, Texas Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Cibolo's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Cibolo Texas general contracting engineering expert witnessCibolo Texas general contracting expert witness concrete failureCibolo Texas general contracting slope failure expert witnessCibolo Texas general contracting expert witnesses fenestrationCibolo Texas general contracting construction expert testimonyCibolo Texas general contracting architecture expert witnessCibolo Texas general contracting stucco expert witnessCibolo Texas general contracting construction claims expert witnessCibolo Texas general contracting building envelope expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Cibolo, Texas

    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Firms that skirt labor laws for construction workers can undercut firms that are obeying those laws. In a piece in Raleigh, North Carolina’s News & Observer, Doug Burton, a commercial masonry contractor summed it up: “my competitors are cheating.” The article describes the low-bidding firms “called their workers independent contractors ? or treated them like ghosts, paid under the table and never acknowledged.” The cost to the state is “unpaid medical bills for injured workers, uncollected business and personal taxes, and payments not made to a depleted state unemployment reserve.”

    One firm examined in the article, Martin’s Bricklaying, employs mostly immigrant Mexican laborers, many of whom are in the country illegally. One employee told the News & Observer, “we don’t complain.”

    Read the full story…


    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A Bronx construction worker died when the pillars gave way in the basement where he was working. The two-story commercial building collapsed, burying Mr. Kebbeh under about six feet of rubble. The New York Times reports that firefighters dug him out with their bare hands. Mr. Kebbeh was taken to Jacobi Medical Center where he died. Two other construction workers escaped unharmed.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Seattle Times reports that groundbreaking is planned for a forty-story tower in Seattle. The building process will take at least five years, during which time, according to the paper, there will be nearly eight thousand new apartments in Seattle. The planned tower will add another 386 units to that.

    The developer, Holland Partner Group, has four other apartments buildings planned or in construction currently, which will account for more than a thousand of the units being added to the city’s apartment stock.

    Read the full story…


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

    July 10, 2012 — David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Often, those practicing in the construction defect field have faced questions concerning the joinder of a party. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado weighed in on the requirements for joinder under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. See Roche Constructors, Inc. v. One Beacon America Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1060000 (D. Colo. 2012). Roche secured a construction contract to build a detention facility for the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office in Lincoln County, Nebraska. In turn, Roche entered into a subcontract with Dobberstein Roofing Company, Inc. in October 2009 to install the roofing system and other related work at the detention facility. The subcontract agreement required Dobberstein to maintain adequate commercial general liability insurance and to add Roche as an additional insured under the policy. Roche maintained a builder’s risk policy issued by OneBeacon America Insurance Company and Dobberstein secured a certificate of liability insurance underwritten by Transportation Insurance Company (“TIC”). Id. at *1.

    Roche alleged that Dobberstein constructed the roofing system in a negligent manner in violation of the subcontract. Roche claims it incurred additional costs to repair structural damage to the roofing system as a result of Dobberstein’s negligent work. In order to cover said damage, Roche tendered insurance claims to OneBeacon and TIC.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com


    New Construction Laws, New Forms in California

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    New construction laws came into effect in California on July 1. Writing for the Martindale-Hubble Legal Library, Glenn Mau, J. Michael McGuire, and John Tonsing, all of Archer Norris, discuss these changes. They note that the most important part of the changes to California construction law is that “all mechanics liens, stop notices and bond claims recorded after July 1, 2012 must use the new standardized forms and follow the new definitions, notice prerequisites and statutory release form language.”

    Read the full story…


    Destruction of Construction Defect Evidence Leads to Sanctions against Plaintiff

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Stating that the plaintiff’s actions have left the defendants in a situation where they “cannot properly defend the action,” a judge in the US District Court of New York has sanctioned the plaintiffs in Aktas v. JMC Dev. Co.

    The plaintiffs hired JMC Development and Stephen Jung, an architect, to renovate their vacation home in Adirnodack, New York. As work progressed, “due to disagreements regarding the completion date and payments for the project, the relationship began to deteriorate.” The plaintiffs hired George Villar as an owner’s representative who “testified that he deemed the workmanship to be ‘poor.’”

    Subsequently, the locks where changed on the home, preventing JMC from performing any additional work, after which drywall was removed, which Villar stated was so that “the engineer come and look at the framing.” Subsequently, Villar sent a letter to JMC stating that the work was “performed in an inadequate, negligent and un-professional manner.” Villar informed JMC that they were not to visit the property. Subsequently, the plaintiffs hired another firm. “Plaintiffs testified that the materials were ‘carted away’ and ‘thrown out.’”

    The plaintiffs filed a suit against JMC and others. JMC filed a motion requesting that the plaintiffs be sanctioned for their spoliation of evidence. The court noted that “the plaintiffs recognized that litigation was imminent,” and that they “had a duty to preserve the evidence. As all of JMC’s work was destroyed, there is no evidence of whether or not the work was defective. The court concluded that it will “issue an adverse inference charge that permits the jury to infer that the missing evidence was favorable to the defendants.”

    In conclusion, the court granted in part the spoliation sanctions. They granted JMC a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud.

    Read the court’s decision…


    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


    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    January 6, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Eighth Circuit determined a jury instruction regarding the applicability of the "all-risk" policy’s exclusion for "collapse" was inadequate. See KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22158 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2011).

    KAAPA had nine large, cylindrical, stainless steel tanks fabricated at its location. Soon after operations began in 2003, some of the tanks experienced unusual movement and began to shift. A geotechnical engineer found "silty clay" had been used for infill instead of compacted granular fill called for in engineering drawings. A year long plan to repair all nine tanks was implemented.

    Affiliated’s "all-risk" policy excluded damage caused by faulty workmanship. It also excluded damage caused by settling or cracking. The settling exclusion went on to provide, "This exclusion will not apply to loss or damage resulting from collapse of: a building or structure; or material part of a building or structure." Affiliated denied coverage because of the faulty workmanship and settling exclusions.

    Read the full story…

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


    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas has denied a petition for a writ of mandamus. The parties involved, Bonner Ball, Thomas Zenner, and Rallin Welch, are lmited partners of Black Diamond Builders, LLP. Black Diamond is the recipient of a lawsuit from Grier and Camille Patton, for whom Black Diamond built a home. The Pattons are alleging construction defects.

    The Black Diamond partners argue that Judge Jeff Shadwick, presiding judge of the 55th District Court of Harris County, Texas should have granted their motion to dismiss. They sought to have the Fourteenth Court of Appeals compel that action.

    The Black Diamond Partners claims that “the homowners failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites before filing suit, and dismissal of the suit was automatic under the applicable statues in effect at the time the Pattons noticed alleged defects in their home.”

    The court noted that “a trial court will be held to have abused its discretion only if the party requesting mandamus relief establishes that the trial court could have reached but one decision.” The court did not concur with this and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.

    Read the court's decision…


    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    June 14, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Minnesota has elected to implement the new OSHA rules concerning fall prevention in residential construction on June 20, well before OSHA’s September 15 deadline. Brian Johnson, reporting in Finance and Commerce, quotes Pam Perri, the executive vice president of the Builders Association of Minnesota, “this is the worst time to implement a new rule.” Ms. Perri notes “In Minnesota, education time for the residential construction industry is between November and March 1, not in the middle of the construction season.”

    Mike Swanson of Rottlund Homes estimated that the new regulations would add between $200 to $500 to the cost of a house and that he felt the current safety regulations were adequate. OSHA officials are quoted that there continues “to be a high number of fall-related deaths in construction.”

    Read the fully story…


    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.

    Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.

    Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”

    The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”

    During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”

    Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    West Coast Casualty has announced the lineup for the annual WCC Construction Defect Seminar. This year’s seminar will be the nineteenth anniversary, and it will be held on May 17th and 18th, 2012 in Anaheim, California. They are the largest construction defect event in the world and this year’s seminar will again bring the top people in the field to address many of the current issues and where the construction defect community will be going in the future.

    The event, anticipated to be even larger than prior years, will have numerous panels and presentations on the current state of construction defect litigation. Among the topics that will be presented are “Arbitrate? Let’s See You Make Me!” “Defending Construction Defect Failure Mechanisms?An Expert’s Perspective,” and “Current Trends in Effectively Handling SB800 Cases.”

    Speakers at the event will include judges, lawyers, and representatives of the insurance industry. One event, “Meet Your Judges, A Candid Discussion on Construction Defect Claims and Litigation from the Bench?” will include judges from five states, including the Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, the Honorable Clifton Newman of the South Carolina Circuit Court, and the Honorable Rex Heeseman of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

    Daniel A. Berman, Esq. and Stephen Henning, Esq. will be talking on the topic of “Social Networking Sites: Strategies, Ethical Pitfalls, and Practice Pointers for Litigating and Winning Your Construction Defect Case.” Mr. Berman is a Founding and Managing Partner of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP. He has been named a Southern California Super Lawyer for eight consecutive years. Mr. Henning is a Founding Partner of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP and Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America. Mr. Henning will also be one of the presenters on the panel “Important Court Decisions Impacting Construction Defect Claims.”

    The panel “Why Do We Need to Know Certain Things and How Decisions Are Made” will be presented by important figures in the construction claims industry, including Phyllis Modlin, Todd Schweitzer, Teresa D. Wolcott, and Lee Wright. Ms. Modlin is a Construction Defect Claims Supervisor responsible for nationwide claims for Markel Corporation. Mr. Schweitzer is an Assistant Vice President of Major Case for Construction Defect and Professional Liability Claims Services at Zurich North America. Ms. Wolcott is the National Product Manager for Construction Defect Claims within the Construction Claims Organization at Travelers Insurance. Mr. Wright is an Assistant Vice President and Senior Claims Consultant for XL Specialty Insurance.

    The event will also include a Science and Technology Fair in which exhibitors will be presenting technological problem solving and decision making as they relate to resolving ongoing construction and post construction-defect related issues while reducing costs for all those involved in claims and litigation. The fair is dedicated to these novel applications of science and technology that benefit the construction defect community but are not yet commonly available. This will be the third time the Construction Defect Seminar will include a Science and Technology Fair.

    Sessions at the event are approved for MCLE credit in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. MCLE credits vary by state; attendees can obtain up to 10.25 hours of credit in Arizona, California, Maine, and New York. Applications for several other states are still pending. Additionally, the event is also worth continuing education credits with the Florida Department of Insurance and for Registered Professional Adjusters. West Coast Casualty has applications pending for adjuster continuing education in an additional thirty-six states.

    West Coast Casualty recommends this event for anyone involved in construction or construction defect claims, whether they are a claims adjuster, a member of a homeowner board, a judge, a property manager, a construction claims attorney, a general contractor, or anyone else with an interest in this area. The event typically has more than 1,600 attendees. Those interested can register online.

    Read the full story…


    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A new law, set to take effect in 2012, lowers the ceiling on when work must be done by a licensed contractor. Through the end of the year, projects costing $20,000 or more had to be done by an Arkansas licensed contractor. As of January 1, 2012, that new limit will be $2,000.

    This will apply to all single-family residences and according to Lovely County Citizen, covers “construction, alteration, renovation, repair, modification, improvement, removal, demotion, or addition to a pre-existing structure.” Residential building contractors will be required to have workers compensation insurance, as will home improvement contactors if they take jobs worth more than $20,000.

    Morris Dillow, a building inspector in Holiday Island, said, “It will get these scammers out of here who are ripping people off.” He cited the example of a contractor who after getting paid for roof repairs and painting, left the job unfinished.

    Read the full story…


    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Michigan couple seeks to void their purchase of a condo in Texas after discovering that the complex was undergoing a construction defect lawsuit. ABQ Journal reports that Charles M. Lea and Olga Y. Ziabrikova said that they would not have purchased the condo if they had known the association was already alleging construction defects. The condo association discovered the defects “by at least late 2010,” according to the suit. The couple bought their condo in August 2011 and heard of the defects only in March 2012.

    The couple notes that no one involved with the sale informed them of the construction defect complaints. The community association’s lawsuit states that problems have lead to $2.5 million in damages. The developer, Vegas Verde Condo Partners, have filed a general denial of the construction problems.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial.

    The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.

    But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer.

    The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal.

    The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred.

    In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no.

    Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Property Casualty 360 reports that the owner of a construction company in California’s Bay Area has been arraigned in San Francisco Superior Court. The fifty-seven felony counts include charges of payroll theft and insurance fraud.

    San Francisco District Attorney, George Gascon is quoted as saying that Doherty’s actions “hurts the honest businesses that were unable to successfully compete for these projects which the defendant was able to underbid and win as a result of this scheme.”

    Frances Ann Doherty, owner of Doherty Painting & Construction has been charged with submitting false documentation as to what wages she paid her workers. It is alleged that over three years she pocketed $600,000. Additionally, she is charged with underpaying her insurer by more than $100,000 by submitting to them the fake payroll information.

    Read the full story…


    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Lloyd Whann, an executive in M. M. Parrish Construction, a Gainesville, Florida firm, is going to trial over claims that he bribed a school district official with more than $50,000 in gifts. The trial has been pushed to March of 2012, in order for his defense to review documents.

    Bob Williams, the former school official, plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. He agreed to testify against Whann and M.M. Parrish Construction.

    Read the full story...