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

    Michigan Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Article 24 of the Occupational Code dictates that a complaint against a builder must be filed with the Department of Consumer and Industry Service within 18 months of the completion, occupancy or purchase of a residence. If building official determines complaint has merit, "Notice to Respondent: sent to provide builder with opportunity to repair; additional administrative procedures follow to conclusion; Individual townships have local rules regarding properties; Example: Bloomfield has mandated that structures must meet ongoing minimum maintenance standards.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Mecosta County Michigan

    Residential contractors need to be licensed. License required for plumbing and electrical trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Builder & Remodelers of Greater Northwest Michigan
    Local # 2357
    PO Box 1062
    Big Rapids, MI 49307
    http://www.hbamc.com/

    Home Builders Association of Central Michigan
    Local # 2364
    2026 Independence Dr
    Mount Pleasant, MI 48858
    http://www.hbacm.com

    Home Builders Association of Midland County
    Local # 2360
    PO Box 1763 7600 Commerce Court Ste. C
    Midland, MI 48641
    http://www.hbamidlandmi.com

    Home Builders Association of West Michigan
    Local # 2390
    PO Box 247
    Hesperia, MI 49421
    http://www.hba-west-michigan.com

    Home Builders Association of Bay County
    Local # 2316
    2939 Bay Arenac Dr
    Bay City, MI 48706
    http://www.baycountyhba.org

    Mid-Eastern Michigan Home Builders Association
    Local # 2365
    3823 W Wheeler Rd
    Standish, MI 48658


    Home Builders Association of Saginaw
    Local # 2378
    3165 Cabaret Trl S
    Saginaw, MI 48603
    http://www.hbas.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Mecosta County Michigan

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

    Nevada District Court Dismisses Case in Construction Defect Coverage Suit

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

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

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

    Environment Decision May Expand Construction Defect Claims

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

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

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

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Colorado Senate Bill 12-181: 2012’s Version of a Prompt Pay Bill

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

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

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

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

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

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

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

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

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

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener

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

    When is a Construction Project truly “Complete”? That depends. (law note)

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

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

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Defect Claims as Occurrences? Check Your State Laws

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Water District Denied New Trial in Construction Defect Claim

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016

    Amerisure Case to be Heard by Texas Supreme Court

    Webinar on Insurance Disputes in Construction Defects

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

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

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    West Hollywood Building: Historic Building May Be Defective

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

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

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    Water Is the Enemy

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

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

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

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Avoid Gaps in Construction Defect Coverage

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Construction Defects: 2010 in Review

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit
    Corporate Profile

    MECOSTA COUNTY MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Mecosta County, Michigan 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 Mecosta County'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.

    Mecosta County Michigan general contracting building expertMecosta County Michigan general contracting construction expert testimonyMecosta County Michigan general contracting civil engineer expert witnessMecosta County Michigan general contracting construction defect expert witnessMecosta County Michigan general contracting ada design expert witnessMecosta County Michigan general contracting construction code expert witnessMecosta County Michigan general contracting engineering expert witnessMecosta County Michigan general contracting construction expert witnessMecosta County Michigan general contracting slope failure expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Mecosta County, Michigan

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Bloomberg News reports that new home purchases neared a two-year high, with July sales being the strongest since April 2010. Economists polled by Bloomberg expected an annual pace of 380,000 sales, the current levels are at 373,000. Strongest sales gains were in the Northeast, with a 20 percent jump. The Midwest and Western regions had small gains, and the South saw a drop of 4.9 percent. As the Northeast’s home prices are highest and the South’s the lowest, the pattern of sales lead to a sharp increase in median sales price.

    Meanwhile, existing stocks of homes continued to deplete, reaching a record low of 38,000 completed homes on the market. In response, builders are constructing new homes at a pace not seen since April 2010, accord to the Commerce Department.

    Read the full story…


    New Households Moving to Apartments

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The New York Times reports that multifamily construction?Äîapartment buildings?Äîis leading the recovery in construction. Construction of single-family homes is only a third of the way up from its fall from its earlier heights, while multifamily construction has recovered two-thirds of its peak. Young adults are moving out of their parents’ homes, but instead of buying homes, they’re renting apartments.

    Houston is adding thousands of new units, leading to a fear of overbuilding. Rents have been rising, but as the supply of apartment units rises, higher rents may be unsustainable. However, during the recession, young adults did not move out of their parents’ homes, leading to about two million doubled-up households. David Crowe, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders, noted that “all of the net addition to households since 2004 has been in rentals.”

    Read the full story…


    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    September 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Illinois Attorney General has filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that two connected firms took money from homeowners and then failed to perform the contracted work. One of the three defendants, Chris Bidigare, was an owner of agent of both Fairway Construction and Maintenance Services, LLC, and Rock Construction Management, LLC.

    In once case, according to the article on the OakPark Patch, one homeowner provided a $111,000 down payment, only to have the company cancel the job and refuse to return the money. One homeowner was told by Fairway that she should contact their insurance provider. The insurance provider told her that Fairway’s insurance had been cancelled due to non-payment.

    The suit seeks to bar the three defendants from working in home repair in Illinois.

    Read the full story…


    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

    Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

    In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

    In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

    Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

    In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

    Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

    The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

    Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    March 4, 2011 — April 4, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    After five years of legal battles, the condo owners of the El Cortez Hotel building in downtown San Diego settled for $6.4 million, as reported by The San Diego Union-Tribune on March 28, 2011. The Homeowners Association will net just over $3 million from the settlement.

    The litigation may have had an adverse effect on the value of the condos within the El Cortez Hotel building. According to an article by Kelly Bennett of Voice of San Diego, “Many condos in the building originally sold for more than $600,000. Currently, the three units on the market are asking for just more than $200,000, the U-T said.”

    Andrew Berman, the owners’ attorney, told The San Diego Union-Tribune that the five years of litigation included six lawsuits, 200 depositions, and multiple construction tests.

    Read the full story... (San Diego Union Tribune)

    Read the full story... (Voice of San Diego)


    OSHA Cites Construction Firm for Safety Violations

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    S.J. Louis Construction of Texas Ltd. has been cited by OHSH for one serious and one repeat safety violation, according to a report in Insurance Journal. OSHA officials saw S.J. Louis employees working in an unshored trench along a highway service road. The company had cited for this violation previously. Without shoring of trenches deeper than five feet there is a risk of serious injury or death.

    Read the full story…


    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Work resumed after nearly three years on an office tower in Santa Clara, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Work had stalled on the building due to the economy, but now the developer is planning a second five-story building on the site. Other dormant projects in the area are also getting restarted. Santa Clara County saw the addition of 1,800 construction jobs in June.

    A spokesperson for the Operating Engineers Local 3 in Alameda told the paper, “two years ago we had five thousand folks on the out-of-work list. It’s now down to about 1,700.”

    Read the full story…


    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The ongoing case over claims that a group fixed homeowner board elections in order to supply the conspirators with a stream of construction defect cases and repairs has lead to fourteen guilty pleas. The judge recently issued charges against fifteen of the accused; one defendant did not join in the group as he was recovering from pneumonia. The prosecutors have asked the judge to delay sentencing, as the investigation is continuing. Prosecutors note that another dozen people may be indicted.

    Along with an earlier group who plead guilty, this brings the total number of guilty pleas in the case to twenty-five. All have promised to cooperate with authorities.

    The case has also involved four deaths, although authorities have not suspected foul play in the deaths. Nancy Quon, one of the four, was the construction defect attorney suspected to be at the center of the conspiracy.

    Read the full story…


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

    June 28, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    According to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.

    In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.

    Read the full story…

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


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

    May 10, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    I love writing this column, because I think it’s refreshing for contractors to hear that they don’t always need an attorney. Today’s post is the “Un-Save a Legal Fee” because I want to point out a specific illustration of when you definitely need your attorney. Using a construction contract template can be fine, but you always need to consider its application to each project ? or it could bite you in the rear.

    Seattle attorney Paul Cressman published a prime depiction of bad contract management, last week. A Florida appellate court struck down a general contractor’s “pay if paid” clause when it became ambiguous because of some incorporated language from its prime contract. Specifically, a clause in the prime contract required the general contractor to pay all subcontractors before receiving payment from the owner, while the general contractor’s “pay if paid” clause required its subcontractors to wait for payment until it arrived from the owner.

    Read the full story…


    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Third Circuit Court has allowed claims to go forward against Owens Corning for making allegedly defective shingles. The shingles split, leading to leaking roofs. The building products manufacturer filed for bankruptcy in 2000, which “extinguished” claims against it. The company was facing millions in liabilities over asbestos lawsuits.

    The lawsuit was filed in 2009. The courts initially found the lawsuit timely, but the Third Circuit Court later applied determined the exposure stated before the bankruptcy. On appeal, the court has reversed this and is again allowing the suit to proceed.

    Read the full story…


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

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In the case, TCD, Inc. v American Family Mutual Insurance Company, the district court’s summary judgment was in favor of the defendant. In response, the Plaintiff, TCD, appealed “on the ground that the insurance company had no duty to defend TCD under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy.” The appeals court affirmed the decision.

    The appeals ruling provides a brief history of the case: “This case arises out of a construction project in Frisco, Colorado. The developer, Frisco Gateway Center, LLC (Gateway), entered into a contract with TCD, the general contractor, to construct a building. TCD entered into a subcontract with Petra Roofing and Remodeling Company (Petra) to install the roof on the building. The subcontract required Petra to "indemnify, hold harmless, and defend" TCD against claims arising out of or resulting from the performance of Petra’s work on the project. The subcontract also required Petra to name TCD as an additional insured on its CGL policy in connection with Petra’s work under the subcontract.”

    Furthermore, “TCD initiated this case against Petra and the insurance company, asserting claims for declaratory judgment, breach of insurance contract, breach of contract, and negligence. The district court entered a default judgment against Petra, and both the remaining parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the entirety of the action, in favor of the insurance company, concluding that the counterclaims asserted by Gateway against TCD did not give rise to an obligation to defend or indemnify under the CGL policy.”

    The appeals court rejected each contention made by TCD in turn. First, “TCD contend[ed] that Gateway’s counterclaims constitute[d] an allegation of ‘property damage,’ which is covered under the CGL policy.” The appeals court disagreed. Next, “TCD argue[d] that [the court] should broaden or extend the complaint rule, also called the ‘four corners’ rule, and allow it to offer evidence outside of the counterclaims to determine the insurance company’s duty to defend in this case.” The appeals court was not persuaded by TCD’s argument.

    The judgment was affirmed. Judge Roman and Judge Miller concur.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

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

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

    Read the court’s decision…


    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    July 19, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Judge Marilyn Kelly of the Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Constr. Inc. (Mich., 2011) to the Court of Appeals, after determining that the court had improperly applied the statute of repose. She reversed their judgment, pending a new trial.

    Ahrens Construction was a subcontractor, hired by Miller-Davis to build and install a natatorium room at a YMCA camp in Kalamazoo, Michigan. After its installation, the YMCA discovered a severe condensation problem, causing moisture to “rain” from the roof. The architect, testifying for Miller-Davis, alleged that the problems were due to improper installation by Ahrens. Ahrens claimed that the condensation problem was due to a design error.

    When the roof was removed and reconstructed, the moisture problem ended. Ahrens argued that the alleged defects were caused by the removal. Further, in trial Ahrens raised the issue of the statute of repose. The court found in favor of Miller-Davis and did not address the statute of repose.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, determining that the statute of repose had barred the suit. This rendered the other issues moot.

    The Michigan Supreme concluded that the issue at hand was “a suit for breach of contract,” and that the Michigan statute of repose is limited to tort actions. They remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the issues that had been mooted by the application of the statute of repose.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Damage During Roof Repairs Account for Three Occurrences

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Southgate Gardens Condominium had buildings damaged by Hurricane Wilma in 2005. See Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Basedeo, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11864 (11th Cir. June 12, 2012). First State Development Corporation was hired by Southgate to do repairs.

    On November 1, 2005, First State completed tarping on the buildings. Thereafter, on November 11, 2005, First State contracted with Southgate to remove and replace the roofs of the Southgate Buildings.

    The tarps placed by First State were inadequate and allowed water to enter the unit of Wayne Basdeo and cause damage. Further, when it attached the tarps, First State caused holes to be made in the roofs of buildings, leading to additional damage. First State also left open the mansards (a type of roof which has two slopes on all all sides, but with the lower slope steeper that the upper one). Finally, the peeled-back condition of the roofing allowed rain to enter.

    Basdeo filed a claim with Mid-Continent.

    Read the full story…

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


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

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A report this week by David McGrath Schwarz of the Las Vegas Sun suggests that Nevada’s construction defect laws will be a point of much contention in upcoming legislative sessions. The report cites renewed interest in the state’s construction defect laws due to ongoing federal investigations of construction defect attorney Nancy Quon and construction company owner Leon Benzer. Guilty pleas have been entered by at least ten individuals including an attorney, property managers, straw purchasers, and former HOA board members.

    The article suggests that Nevada’s Chapter 40 laws are easily manipulated to the detriment of Nevada’s homebuilding industry. Construction industry lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to change the laws in past legislative sessions.

    The Sun’s article speculates that the building industry might be able to gain legislative concessions due to the volume of guilty pleas and what it refers to as examples of Chapter 40 abuses. ”With federal authorities collecting guilty pleas, the construction industry has prime examples of the system being abused, and how lucrative it can be for attorneys.”

    Read the full story…


    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A state audit of the Los Angeles Community College District found many problems with their construction spending. Their report, as described in the Los Angeles Times, found construction money spent for other purposes, such as promotional photography and public relation tours, $28.3 million spent on projects that were later cancelled, and oversight committees that provided no oversight.

    Earlier this year, the LA Times ran a series of articles detailing problems with the Los Angles Community College District’s construction program. The LA Times reported that the State Controller’s audit reached many of the same conclusions.

    The Community College District disputed the findings.

    Read the full story…


    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Our congratulations to Tred Eyerly who has been blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii for five years now. Over the years, he has posted more than five hundred posts and has provided us all with fascinating insights into the laws on insurance coverage. He describes his blog as “a commentary on insurance coverage issues in Hawaii and beyond.” We are grateful that the “beyond” has just in the last few weeks included Colorado, Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, and Rhode Island (about as far from the island of Hawaii as you can get).

    You can read his blog at Insurance Law Hawaii.