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

    Florida Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: In Title XXXIII Chapter 558, the Florida Legislature establishes a requirement that homeowners who allege construction defects must first notify the construction professional responsible for the defect and allow them an opportunity to repair the defect before the homeowner canbring suit against the construction professional. The statute, which allows homeowners and associations to file claims against certain types of contractors and others, defines the type of defects that fall under the authority of the legislation and the types of housing covered in thelegislation. Florida sets strict procedures that homeowners must follow in notifying construction professionals of alleged defects. The law also establishes strict timeframes for builders to respond to homeowner claims. Once a builder has inspected the unit, the law allows the builder to offer to repair or settle by paying the owner a sum to cover the cost of repairing the defect. The homeowner has the option of accepting the offer or rejecting the offer and filing suit. Under the statute the courts must abate any homeowner legal action until the homeowner has undertaken the claims process. The law also requires contractors, subcontractors and other covered under the law to notify homeowners of the right to cure process.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Taylor County Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Panama City (Fla)
    Local # 1042
    PO Box 979
    Panama City, FL 32402


    Northeast Florida Builders Association
    Local # 1024
    103 Century 21 Dr Ste 100
    Jacksonville, FL 32216
    http://www.nefba.com

    Forgotten Coast Builders Assoc
    Local # 1015
    PO Box 1005
    Port Saint Joe, FL 32457
    http://www.forgottencoastbuilder.com/

    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055
    http://www.buildcolumbiacounty.com

    Builders Association of North Central FL
    Local # 1020
    2217 NW 66th Ct
    Gainesville, FL 32653
    http://www.bancf.com

    Florida Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 1000
    PO Box 1259
    Tallahassee, FL 32302
    http://www.fhba.com

    Home Builders Association of West Florida
    Local # 1048
    4400 Bayou Blvd Suite 45
    Pensacola, FL 32503
    http://www.westfloridabuilders.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Taylor County Florida

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

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

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

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

    Insurer Not Liable for Construction Defect Revealed by Woodpecker

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

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

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    Water District Denied New Trial in Construction Defect Claim

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

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

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

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    No-Show Contractor Can’t Hide from Construction Defect Claim

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

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

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

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

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Florida Construction Defect Case Settled for $3 Million

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

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

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

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

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

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

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

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

    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

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

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

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

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

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

    Pictorial Construction Terminology Dictionary — A Quick and Helpful Reference

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

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

    Webinar on Insurance Disputes in Construction Defects

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

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

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

    Tampa Condo Owners Allege Defects

    Association May Not Make Claim Against Builder in Vermont Construction Defect Case

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

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

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

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

    TAYLOR COUNTY FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Taylor County, Florida Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Taylor County's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Taylor County, Florida

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    August 2, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    A U.S. District Court in Washington found coverage in what it described as a text book study of the efficient proximate cause rule. Hiller v. Allstate Pro. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84862 (E.D. Wash. June 19, 2012).

    The Hillers purchased a newly constructed home in December 2006. They also purchased an all-risk homeowner's policy from Allstate.

    In July 2010, the Hillers discovered that the carpet in the basement of the residence was saturated with water. Allstate was immediately notified. Hiller began an investigation to attempt to determine the source of the water. He poured water into a downspout drain at the northwest corner of the residence. This caused water to leak into the northwest corner of the home's basement.

    An area was excavated around the northwest downspout drain. The end of the drain pipe was partially blocked by rocks and had been wrapped with fabric landscaping material. Further, a “T” pipe installed at the foot of the drain was directing water toward the house's concrete foundation. Hiller notified Allstate that the problems with the drain was due to construction defects and the system was designed to fail.

    Allstate denied the claim. Based upon Hiller's information, coverage was excluded under the policy's surface water, subsurface water, inherent vice, and latent defect exclusions.

    Read the full story…

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


    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    April 25, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The eleventh defendant has entered a guilty plea in the ongoing federal investigation of construction defect fraud in the Las Vegas area. Mahin Quintero plead guilty to producing a false authentication feature, a misdemeanor. Ms. Quintero’s part in the scheme was to falsely authenticate signatures on loan documents for straw buyers. Ms. Quintero stated in court that she had been ordered to destroy her notary book three years ago. According to her plea bargain, the straw buyers did not appear in front of her when she notarized their signatures. As part of the scheme, the straw buyers would take control of homeowners associates, sending construction defect complaints and repairs to favored firms.

    Read the full story…


    Contractor Sues License Board

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

    Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

    Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

    Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

    Read the court’s decision…


    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The indictments continue in the Las Vegas HOA scandal. A lawyer for the Justice Department told the judge in the case that “we expect several indictments before the end of the year.” According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, “a dozen or more” additional people will be charged in the conspiracy.

    The judge in the case, Senior U.S. District Judge Lloyd George, told prosecutors that he wanted to address the issue of compensation for homeowners. Currently, defendants have agreed to pay $1.5 million to compensate homeowners associations and banks. Vistana homeowners have claimed that the conspirators got the bulk of a $19 million construction defect settlement.

    Read the full story…


    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    March 3, 2011 — Original reporting by Gale Holland, Michael Finnegan and Doug Smith, Los Angeles Times

    In the latest installment of the “Billions To Spend” series of investigative reports focused on construction defects, management, and cost issues relevant to LACC’s Community College Modernization Projects, the LA Times examines the costs associated with the various layers of construction management and benefits that accrued to contractors with ties to LACC trustees.

    The reporting by the Times is seemingly critical of the project’s utilization of “body shops” an industry term for companies that function as employers of record. The article segment published today cites a number of circumstances wherein their utilization appears to have escalated costs substantially.

    “To gauge the cost of the staffing system, The Times reviewed thousands of pages of financial records from April 2007, when URS began managing the program, to July 2010. Reporters identified two dozen contractors serving as conduits for pay and benefits for employees they did not supervise.

    At least 230 people were employed in this manner, at a total cost of about $40 million, the records show.

    Approximately $18 million of the total was paid to the employees, according to the Times analysis. The remaining $22 million went to profit and overhead for contractors, the records indicate.

    For employees on its own payroll, the district says that medical and other benefits increase compensation costs 40% above base salaries. So if the district had employed its construction staff directly, the total cost for the period studied would have been $25 million instead of $40 million, a savings of $15 million, The Times calculated.”

    Read Full Story...


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

    July 13, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Although the insurer paid for some of the mold damage at the insured’s home, the Fifth Circuit eventually determined the homeowner’s policy did not cover such damage. Rooters v. State Farm Lloyds, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12306 (5th Cir. June 15, 2011).

    The policy excluded loss caused by hail to personal property unless the direct force of wind or hail made an opening in the roof allowing rain to enter. Further, the policy excluded loss caused by mold or other fungi.

    In 1999, hail and rain caused water damage to the roof and interior of the residence. State Farm paid $19,000 to repair the roof. Another $1,800 was paid for repairs to the interior of the building. In 2002, the insured noticed black mold. State Farm issued an additional check for $4,402 for mold abatement.

    Read the full story…

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


    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    August 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    This post will examine whether Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals properly reversed and remanded several lower court decisions in the case of Vision One LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance. In short, and from the perspective of an appellate attorney, the court of appeals got the decision right. Given the rules of contract interpretation and causation in tort claims, there was really no other way the court could have ruled. I understand that from a contractor’s perspective and insurance perspective, the decision seems odd. But from a purely legal standpoint, the decision is well-reasoned and well-supported. Let me explain.

    Background

    First, here are the facts in a nutshell. Vision One is a construction company that undertook to construct a condo complex in Tacoma. Vision then contracted with D&D Concrete to pour a concrete slab for a section of the foundation. To shore the concrete slab, D&D further contracted Berg Equipment to provide necessary equipment to stabilize the structure. Well, something down the line went wrong. The shoring failed and the slab collapsed, causing a great deal of damage.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court’s decision…

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


    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Northhampton County, Pennsylvania is suing a contractor who resurfaced a parking garage in 2009. According to the Express-Times, three years later, the surface is cracked and the county is seeking $700,000 for repairs. Additionally, they have withheld $44,000 of the $2.2 million contract because of the problems. John Stoffa, Northampton County Executive, says that the garage is stable, but not up to safety standards.

    Read the full story…


    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    July 5, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insured homeowners were unsuccessful in arguing around the policy's exclusions when seeking coverage for damage caused by Chinese drywall. Ross v. C. Adams. Constr. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App. June 14, 2011).

    Before the insureds purchased and moved into their home, it was renovated. After moving in, the insures discovered foreign gypsum drywall, or Chinese drywall. The insureds submitted a claim to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. In an investigation, the insurer confirmed the presence of Chinese drywall and damage to the metal surfaces caused by corrosion. Louisiana Citizens refused coverage and the insureds sued. The trial court denied the insured's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens.

    The court of appeal affirmed. Initially, the court determined the insureds sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and required that the drywall be removed and replaced.

    Four exclusions, however, barred coverage. First, damages due to faulty or defective materials were excluded from coverage. The Chinese drywall emitted high levels of sulfuric gas which caused the damage to the insured's plumbing, electrical wiring and metal components.

    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 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.


    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    There was a significant increase in the number of open construction jobs during October, according to a report for the National Association of Home Builders. Working from preliminary data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NAHB said that the number of open positions reached “levels and rates last seen in 2007.” As the data is still preliminary, the NAHB noted that the conclusions should be taken with caution.

    While there was a spike in job openings, the hiring of people to fill these positions hasn’t caught up with it, and there was a small decline in hires. But to return to the good news, there was also a drop in layoffs in that same period.

    Through October, about 8,000 people have been hired in the construction sector. The NAHB notes that this does not correspond with the recent increases with home construction. They suggest that “it may be the case that startups in the home building and remodeling sectors are being missed by the establishment survey.” Another possibility they raise is that already-employed construction workers are simply working more hours.

    Read the full story…


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

    February 10, 2012 — Douglas Rieser, Builders Counsel

    Stonewood v. Infinity Homes is a simple construction dispute over a matter of about $9,000.00. But sometimes these tiny little disputes turn into expensive legal battles over mere procedural quivering. In Stonewood, a small subcontractor won a big victory yesterday when the Divison 1 Court of Appeals upheld its judgment against a lien release bond posted by an owner.

    Infinity Homes contracted with Stonewood Design to lay tile in one of its customer’s homes. Stonewood did the work, but Infinity withheld roughly $9,000.00 of the contract sums for what it alleged were trade damages left on the tile. The two parties were unable to come to an agreement over payment and Stonewood proceeded with a lien under RCW 60.04. It then filed an action to enforce the lien against the homeowner, Infinity and its bonding company.

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

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

    Read the court’s decision…


    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…


    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    April 25, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Cousel

    Contractual fairness ? it is part of my mantra. If you read the blog, you probably know that I preach brevity, balance and clarity in contracting. The State of Washington did well to finally eliminate something that has angered me for quite some time ? unfair indemnification.

    One of my favorite construction contract revisions is mutual indemnification. Many “up the chain” contractors and owners are going to stick you with a unilateral indemnification clause that protects them for just about everything, including their own fumbling of a project. Adding mutual indemnification provides some balance, and keeps parties reliant upon each other for success on the job site.

    Read the full story…

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


    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

    Water intrusion caused by a construction defect was not covered under the all risk policy’s ensuing loss provision. See Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123582 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2011).

    Extensive water damage was discovered in the insureds’ home when a small hole in the exterior wall was being repaired. Chubb’s adjuster and an expert found water intrusion causing rot, mold, and damage to the home’s wood framing and insulation. Chubb denied coverage because water intruded through the roof and wall, resulting in gradual deterioration. The insureds filed suit.

    The policy excluded coverage for construction defects, but insured "ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies."

    The court agreed there was a prima facie case for coverage because the home suffered a physical loss.

    Read the full story…

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


    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    More than a dozen construction workers fell about thirty feet when a floor collapsed in a Cincinnati casino. The workers were pouring cement on the second-floor level when the accident happened. The area in question will be the gaming area in the completed casino. Scott Allen, OSHA’s regional spokesperson, said their investigation of the accident would probably take about a month to complete.

    The cause of the collapse is still undetermined. Although the weather has been wet in the area, experts thought it unlikely to be the cause. A construction forensics professor at Ohio State University said that “concrete pouring is very common” and that “you cannot go wrong unless something happens with the connection.” Engineering experts said it was more likely an issue with the metal decking.

    Read the full story…