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

    Maine Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Rangeley Maine


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Maine Home Builders & Rem Assn
    Local # 2020
    8 Mulliken Ct Suite 3
    Augusta, ME 04330
    http://www.hbrame.org

    Southern York County Home Builders Association
    Local # 2030
    8 Mulliken Ct Suite 3
    Augusta, ME 04330
    http://www.hbrame.org

    Home Builders & Remodelers Assn of Maine
    Local # 2000
    8 Mulliken Ct Suite 3
    Augusta, ME 04330
    http://www.hbrame.org

    Modular Home Builders Association of Maine
    Local # 2015
    8 Mulliken Ct Suite 3
    Augusta, ME 04330
    http://www.modularhomebuilders.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Rangeley Maine

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Florida trigger

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Amerisure Case to be Heard by Texas Supreme Court

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

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    David McLain to Speak at the CDLA 2012 Annual Conference

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Building Boom Leads to Construction Defect Cases

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

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

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

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

    New Construction Laws, New Forms in California

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

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

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

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

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

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

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

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

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

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

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

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

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

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

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

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

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve
    Corporate Profile

    RANGELEY MAINE CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Rangeley, Maine 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Rangeley'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.

    Rangeley Maine general contracting construction defect expert witnessRangeley Maine general contracting defective construction expertRangeley Maine general contracting construction cost estimating expert witnessRangeley Maine general contracting expert witness roofingRangeley Maine general contracting construction claims expert witnessRangeley Maine general contracting testifying construction expert witnessRangeley Maine general contracting roofing construction expertRangeley Maine general contracting soil failure expert witnessRangeley Maine general contracting construction expert witnesses
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Rangeley, Maine

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

    The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

    Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

    The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

    The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

    The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

    The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    June 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Work stopped on a $7 million construction project in Oak Harbor, Washington, after three sets of Native American remains were found. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation had suggested that the project employ an archaeologist. City, state, and tribal officials are determining what will happen next. The Seattle Times reports that Jim Slowik, Oak Harbor’s mayor, has asked for a review of why no archaeologist was part of the project.

    Read the full story…


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

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    As we approach the tenth anniversary of the passage and signing of SB800, California’s right-to-repair law, we’d like to hear your reactions to the law, your experiences with it, and your thoughts on it and right-to-repair laws in other states.

    We invite you to submit articles either reacting to SB800 or on other matters relevant to construction defect and claims issues. You can promote your firm’s capabilities and get valuable exposure through the publication of your articles. Construction Defect Journal is widely read by our highly targeted audience of decision makers, construction attorneys, builders, owners, and claims professionals.

    Articles may contain relevant images, your firm’s name, and links to your corporate website or third parties and can be submitted through e-mail to submitstory@constructiondefectjournal.com. Please remember to include your contact information if you would like it to be published with your content. If you are submitting photos or PDF documents with your article, please send them as e-mail attachments. Items submitted are assumed to be cleared for publishing upon receipt by CDJ.

    Normally articles are published in full, although we reserve the right to edit content for space purposes. All articles submitted are considered for publication. For additional questions please contact editor@constructiondefectjournal.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…


    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.

    Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.

    The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”

    Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”

    The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”

    Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”

    The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.

    Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.

    Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”

    The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    July 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Texas-based Godfather Construction is a recipient of a fraud suit from the Cook County state attorney’s office. The firm incorporated in Illinois in April 2010, moving there to do business after storms damaged homes in the Chicago suburbs, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. The state attorney alleges that Godfather brought unlicensed out-of-state workers and the work they performed was “incomplete or shoddy.” Godfather is claimed to have received about $60,000 from Illinois homeowners. The prosecutors are seeking restitution for Godfather’s clients and seek to forbid the firm from doing business in Illinois.

    Read the full story…


    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    April 14, 2011 — April 14, 2011 - CDCoverage.com

    In Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Centex Homes, No. C 10-02757 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011), general contractor Centex was sued by homeowners for construction defects. Centex tendered its defense to Travelers as an additional insured under policies issued by Travelers to two Centex subcontractors. Travelers agreed to defend Centex under a reservation of rights and selected defense counsel to defend Centex. Centex refused to accept the defense, asserting that it was entitled to select defense counsel. Travelers filed suit against Centex seeking a declaratory judgment that Centex had breached the duty to cooperate condition in the Travelers’ policy.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

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

    Year-end economic indicators demonstrate that private commercial construction may be increasing in 2012, primarily as demand grows for new projects built in the United States.

    According to an article in Businessweek, the Architecture Billings Index held at 52 in December, indicating a modest expansion in the market. The American Institute of Architects said that the commercial and industrial component of the number climbed to 54.1 in December, the highest in 10 months.

    The monthly survey of U.S.-based architecture firms is one of the main indicators of nonresidential construction, and these numbers suggest that modest improvement may be on the horizon.

    The information is confirmed by data from the Census Bureau that shows that spending on lodging, office, commercial and manufacturing buildings grew 8.2 percent in November to $9.2 billion from a year ago. These types of commercial and industrial projects are historically canaries in the mine and are usually the first part of the industry to improve as the economy expands.

    Read the full story…

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


    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A man driving a rental truck collided with a parking ramp at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, leading to his death when the ramp broke and crushed the cab of the truck. One expert said that the ramp should have been built to withstand the impact. Tim Galarnyk told Fox News that the building feature didn’t’ even bear weight, describing it as “a cosmetic facial panel.” Nevertheless, in a contest with a truck he said the ramp portion should “peel it like a tin can before it takes the concrete element down.”

    The Mall of American is not commenting on the accident.

    Read the full story…



    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


    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    August 4, 2011 — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Recently, in Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC v. Zero Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. 10CV1094, Boulder County District Court Judge Ingrid S. Bakke entered a ruling and order on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Question of Law Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56(h) on Issue of Damages. The Order found that the Plaintiff was not a homeowner intended to be protected by the Homeowner Protection Act (the “HPA”) and thus could not pursue its claims for consequential damages against Defendant.

    By way of background, on June 18, 2008, Plaintiff Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC (“Caribou”) entered into a Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Contractor AIA Document A114-2001 (the “Contract”) with Defendant Zero Energy, LLC (“Zero Energy”). Plaintiff hired Zero Energy to serve as a general contractor for the construction of a single-family home in the Caribou Ridge subdivision in Nederland, Colorado. A provision in the contract contained a mutual waiver of consequential damages (“Waiver”).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC


    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    May 19, 2011 — May 16, 2011 - CDJ Staff

    WSMV, Nashville reports that the ceiling collapse in a Franklin, Tennessee Kohl’s was attributed to a construction defect by fire officials. The officials noted that the ceiling was renovated at the time. No injuries were reported.

    The report notes that “inspectors were supposed to look at the renovations next week, but fire officials said that will have to be delayed until another time.”

    Read the full story…


    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    December 9, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Applying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit found a duty to defend construction defect claims where the faulty workmanship was unintentional. Greystone Const. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22053 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). A prior post [here] discussed the Tenth Circuit’s certified question to the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter, a request that was rejected by the Colorado court.

    In two underlying cases, Greystone was sued by the homeowner for damage caused to the foundation by soil expansion. In both cases, the actual construction was performed by subcontractors. Further, in neither case was the damage intended or anticipated. Nevertheless, National Union refused to defend, contending property damage resulting from faulty construction was not an occurrence.

    Relying on a Colorado Court of Appeals case, General Security Indemn. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), the district court granted summary judgment to National Union.

    On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether Colorado legislation enacted to overturn General Security could be applied retroactively. The statute, section 13-20-808, provided courts "shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured."

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    June 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    While digging for a new steam line at Eastern Michigan University, workers unearthed some old bones. Experts have yet to determine if the bones are human or animal, however Walter Kraft, the EMU vice president of communications, noted that a handle also unearthed might have come from a casket. Cindy Heflin, reporting in AnnArbor.com notes that until 1900 a Catholic cemetery was located in the area. Although the bodies were relocated, these may have been left behind.

    Read the full story…


    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    May 20, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    PR Newswire reports that the Carolinas Associated General Contractors (CAGC) have successfully persuaded the South Carolina legislature to pass a bill restoring commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. Governor Nikki Hartley signed the legislation on May 17.

    A South Carolina Supreme Court decision given on January 7, 2011, had ended commercial general liability coverage in the state. Senate Bill 431 addressed this decision, restoring the ability of home builders to obtain CGL coverage.

    PR Newswire quotes South Carolina homebuilder, Allen Amsler: “We have seen a lot of legislation with substantial impact to our business over the years. However, I would place this in the same level of importance with the original tort reform legislation. The effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling could have been catastrophic to our industry in South Carolina had it not been for this bill. Thanks to all those in the House, Senate and the Governor’s office who assisted us.”

    Read the full story…


    Hospital Construction Firm Settles Defect Claim for $1.1 Million

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Law360 reports that Bovis Lend Lease has settled claims of $10 million in damages for $1.1 million. Bovis was building three annexes to a hospital in Oklahoma. The hospital alleged that a faulty moisture barrier system lead to damage throughout the hospital.

    Bovis is a division of the Lend Lease Group, a multinational construction firm based Sydney, Australia.

    Read the full story…


    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    April 7, 2011 — April 7, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011 (H. R. 1309) has been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services—the first step in the legislative process. The bill, if passed, would extend the program to September 30, 2016. It is currently slated to be terminated September 30 of this year. The bill also contains changes to premium rates, mapping protocols, and privatization initiatives.

    H. R. 1309 has garnered the support of several Insurance organizations. Leigh Ann Pusey, president and CEO of the American Insurance Association (AIA), sent a letter of support to the Chair and Ranking member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee. “AIA has advocated for a long term reauthorization of the NFIP to protect consumers and help increase stability for real estate transactions and policyholders,” Pusey said. “AIA believes the five-year extension contained in HR 1309, will provide certainty in the flood program thereby increasing consumer and business confidence in the NFIP.”

    Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) spoke out in support of the bill. “For the NFIP to survive, the prices for flood insurance must reflect the actual costs of flood risk for a property,” Grande said. “HR 1309 will provide that transparency. In addition, the Technical Mapping Advisory Council will give communities a voice in the flood mapping process, fostering a better understanding of what flood maps represent and how they are made.”

    Read H. R. 1309...
    Read the American Insurance Association statement...
    Read the NAMIC Press Release...


    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    As of May, only 61 residential construction permits have been issues in Roanoke County, Virginia, leaving officials doubtful that this year will meet last year’s mark of 179 permits. Residential construction was at its highest in the county in 2004. The worst year since then was 2009, when the county issued 143 permits. The county is in the western end of the state, near the border with West Virginia, and far from the D.C. metropolitan area.

    Arnold Covey, the Director of Community Development for the county said that “it may be until 2014 before we really see a difference. The article by WDBJ7.com notes that a “key part” of the county budget comes from real estate.

    Read the full story…