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

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Weed California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    North State Building Industry Association
    Local # 0540
    1536 Eureka Rd
    Roseville, CA 95661
    http://www.northstatebia.org

    California Building Industry Association
    Local # 0500
    1215 K Street Ste 1200
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    http://www.cbia.org

    Building Industry Association of the Bay Area - Northern Division
    Local # 0538
    PO Box 7100
    Santa Rosa, CA 95407


    Building Industry Association of the Delta
    Local # 0513
    315 N San Joaquin St Ste 2
    Stockton, CA 95202
    http://www.biadelta.org

    Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
    Local # 0538
    101 Ygnacio Valley Rd # 210
    Walnut Creek, CA 94596
    http://www.biabayarea.org

    Building Industry Association of the Bay Area - Eastern Division
    Local # 0538
    PO Box 5160
    San Ramon, CA 94583


    Building Industry Association of Central California
    Local # 0536
    900 H St Ste E2
    Modesto, CA 95354
    http://www.biacc.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Weed California

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

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

    Florida trigger

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

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Florida Construction Defect Case Settled for $3 Million

    Construction Defects: 2010 in Review

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

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

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

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

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

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Limitations of Liability in Subcontractors’ Contracts May Not Be Enforceable in Colorado to Limit Claims by Construction Professionals.

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

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

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

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Ohio Casualty’s and Beazer’s Motions were Granted in Part, and Denied in Part

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

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

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

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

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

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

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

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

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

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

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

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Bars Coverage for Landslide and Water Leak

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

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

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

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

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

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

    Surveyors Statute Trumps Construction Defect Claim in Tennessee

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Florida trigger

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

    Will They Blow It Up?
    Corporate Profile

    WEED CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Weed, California 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 Weed'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.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Weed, California

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    American West Development attempted to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 27, but their plan was turned down by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Mike Nakagawa. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Judge Nakagawa rejected the plan over a trust fund for construction defects. America West’s attorney said they were hoping to complete the process by the end of the year.

    Under approved portions of the plan, America West’s owner, Lawrence Canarelli, will retain control of the corporation, although he must contribute $10 million into the firm and an additional $1.5 million into the fund for construction defects. America West faces charges for construction defects reported in the broad range of “less than $20 million” to “as much as $80 million.”

    Read the full story…


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

    May 18, 2011 — May 18, 2011 - CDCoverage.com

    In JTO, Inc. v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2010-L-062 (Ohio Ct. App. March 25, 2011), general contractor JTO was sued by hotel project owner Marriott for breach of contract and warranties seeking damages for the repair of construction defects resulting in moisture penetration property damage to interior components. JTO filed a third party complaint against subcontractor Farizel and also tendered its defense as an additional insured under Farizel’s State Auto CGL policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Census Bureau, HUD Show Declines in Residential Construction

    May 17, 2011 – CDJ Staff

    The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development released their summary of residential construction for April 2011 on May 17.

    Building permits for privately owned housing units were down 4% from last month and 12% from last year. Similarly, privately-owned housing starts were down 10% from March and 23% below the previous year.

    For further details, read the Census Bureau/HUD report


    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that Nevada’s construction defect and minimum wage laws are hampering job growth. The organization conducted a survey, and although only about two percent of the members responded, they passed the opinions of the group on to Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has said, according to the report by Fox News Reno, that he wants the state to be more business friendly. He supports reforms to Nevada’s construction defect laws, saying that he’d “like to see some reform” on the issue of mandatory attorney’s fees.

    Randi Thompson, the spokesperson for the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said that members of her organization would like to see current Nevada construction defect law revoked. She described current law as “driven towards lawyers and not toward protecting consumers.”

    Read the full story…


    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    August 4, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    Colorado General Assembly House Bill 10-1394 was signed into law by the Governor on May 21, 2010, codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-808 (2010)

    13-20-808. Insurance policies issued to construction professionals

    (1) (a) The general assembly finds and determines that:

    (I) The interpretation of insurance policies issued to construction professionals is of vital importance to the economic and social welfare of the citizens of Colorado and in furthering the purposes of this part 8.

    (II) Insurance policies issued to construction professionals have become increasingly complex, often containing multiple, lengthy endorsements and exclusions conflicting with the reasonable expectations of the insured.

    (III) The correct interpretation of coverage for damages arising out of construction defects is in the best interest of insurers, construction professionals, and property owners.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.

    The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.

    The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.

    The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”

    The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.

    The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”

    The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

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

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    November 2011 marked the first anniversary of the Construction Defect Journal. During the first year our staff and contributors in the insurance and legal communities have compiled several hundred articles of interest to the construction defect and claims community.

    Each of these articles are maintained in the CDJ archives, and are accessible at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/archives.html. Each story in the archives is listed in the order it was posted to the archives. Each story in the archives opens up in its own page, so you can easily locate topics and articles of interest.

    If you’re new to Construction Defect Journal, or just want peruse past articles, please take a moment to visit the CDJ Archives page. Also please feel encouraged to submit your firm’s articles or legal publications of interest to the CD community at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/submitStory.html.


    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Attempts to build “green,” reducing energy costs and increasing the use of sustainable building materials, may lead to more lawsuits, according to a report issued by the British Columbia Construction Association. The report warned those who were going to build green look into the implications. The report looked at the result of green building practices and requirements adopted in the United States.

    The report warns that “the use of novel, less harmful building material or new construction techniques may give rise to liability due to: contractor inexperience with installation; lack of long-term evaluation of green materials; lack of understanding of how new building materials may impact existing traditional building systems; or warranties provided unintentionally about the durability or effectiveness of unproven materials or techniques.”

    Manley McLachlan, president of the BCAA noted that they are aware of “legal action around the performance of the buildings,” noting that while fast-growing trees help toward LEED certification, their wood is more prone to mold. He also felt that low-VOC paints needed more testing to prove their durability as exterior finishes.

    Read the full story…


    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    So few new single-family homes have sold in 2011 that expectations are that this will be the worst year for new homes sales since the Commerce Department started tracking this in 1963. The Harford Courant notes that previously builders created a new supply to which was added homes under foreclosure.

    Ed Leamer, economist and director of UCLA’s Anderson Forecast, says that recovery would be driven by two sectors, manufacturing and construction. “It doesn’t look like there is going to be a big recovery in manufacturing,” he says. “It is going to have to come in housing.”

    The soft housing market, however, is leading to a loss of construction jobs, as reported by the Associated General Contractors of America. As a result, stock prices for the twelve largest publicly-traded home builders have declined 22.7 percent in a market that has declined 4.2 percent overall.

    Read the full story…


    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    December 20, 2012 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    With the aftermath of Sandy still being felt up and down the Eastern seaboard, the question of many victims turns to how they can rebuild their lives and homes.  One of the first things many people do is call on their insurance carriers to help rebuild whatever damaged property they have.  In a recent case here in Colorado, those rebuilding efforts got reaffirmed by a Court of Appeals case, Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Company, --- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 4459112 (Colo. App. September 27, 2012).

    The facts of the case are pretty straightforward and could describe many repair vendors in numerous situations.  Roofing Experts contracted with four homeowners insured by Allstate to repair their damaged roofs.  The contracts provided that repair costs would be paid from insurance proceeds.  The contracts also allowed Roofing Experts full authority to communicate with Allstate regarding all aspects of the insurance claims.  Before work began, Roofing Experts met with adjusters from Allstate to discuss the four homes and the amount of each claim.  After receiving approval for the claims, Roofing Experts began the repairs.  During construction, Roofing Experts discovered additional repairs were necessary to maintain certain manufacturer’s warranties and to conform to applicable building codes. 

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Iandorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com


    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Two New Jersey contractors have pleaded guilty to charges that they made false representations for a government contract in a case related to kickbacks for construction work done in two school districts. New Jersey is recommending that the two men, Martin Starr and Stephen Gallagher, will each pay $50,000 in penalties, serve up to a year in jail, and be unable to accept public contracts for five years.

    Last month, another individual in the case, Kenneth Disko, who had been the engineer for the school district, pleaded guilty on a similar charge. In addition to a $50,000 penalty, he will be serving three to five years in prison. A fourth conspirator, Robert Berman, the former business administrator for one of the school districts, has to pay a $13,000 fine and cooperate with the investigation. He is also barred from public employment in New Jersey and has been terminated from his position.

    Starr admitted to preparing fictitious quotes which appeared to be from other contractors in order that his firm would seem to be the lowest bidder. Gallagher helped in preparing the fictitious bids and also provided cash kickbacks to Disko.

    Read the full story…


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

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly twenty tons of steel fell forty stories at the World Trade Center site on February 16. One person was checked by medical personnel. One person who works in the Financial District said it was “almost like thunder.” Frank Pensabene, one of the ironworkers on the site said that after “loud boom,” “all hell broke loose.” The steel beams and cables fell onto a flatbed truck, which was not occupied at the time.

    Read the full story…


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

    May 26, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.

    The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”

    Read the full story…

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


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

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

    The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

    D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

    “(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

    The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

    The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

    Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

    The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Courthouse News has a summary of the current lawsuit over a Nevada conspiracy to defraud homeowners by taking control of homeowner boards and then providing inadequate repairs. Homeowners in eight Las Vegas area communities are involved in the suit, which claims that the conspirators purchased units in the communities and then transferred fractional interests to others to allow them to run for HOA board elections. The suit claims that David Amesbury and his firm helped manipulate the elections.

    Once homeowner boards were controlled by the conspirators, Nancy Quon, the construction defect attorney whose recent death appears to be by suicide, handled the litigation against homebuilders. She would settle out of court, engaging Silver Lining Construction to “do very minor and superficial repairs” to the homes. The remainder of the money was split by the conspirators. The suit also notes that the construction defect claims were “frivolous,” and?in addition to the negative publicity?caused the homes to lose at least 5% of their value.

    Read the full story…


    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Quoting one homeowner as saying that his house “can fall in the ground for all I care, I made my money,” the Tampa Bay Times looks at the issue of sinkhole claims in Florida. Homeowners “have paid off mortgages, put in pools, replaced roofs, or otherwise used money from sinkhole claims to do something besides fix sinkhole damage.

    It’s been tough for insurance companies. Citizens Property Insurance took in $32 million in premiums for sinkhole coverage in 2010, but paid out $245 million in sinkhole claims. The Tampa Bay Times notes that some of those claims come from settling problems caused by their repairs, including one settlement of $350,000 for repairs to a house worth $39,000.

    One couple, after receiving $217,000 from Citizens, sold the house to a company that bought unrepaired sinkhole homes for $190,000. The home has been sold since and remains unrepaired.

    Sometimes the preferred solution by the insurance company isn’t the cheapest either. One couple was informed that Citizens was going to spend $150,000 to have the hole filled with grout. After they settled with the insurance company, they fixed the problem by installing steel piers, at a cost of about $45,000.

    Read the full story…


    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    June 6, 2011 — Douglas Reiser in the Builders Counsel Blog

    Apparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?

    Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.

    If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.

    But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.

    Read the full story…

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


    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    September 1, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Although the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions.  See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).

    White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.

    Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.

    Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

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