BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building Taylor County Florida hospital construction Taylor County Florida tract home Taylor County Florida mid-rise construction Taylor County Florida retail construction Taylor County Florida multi family housing Taylor County Florida custom homes Taylor County Florida office building Taylor County Florida housing Taylor County Florida condominiums Taylor County Florida condominium Taylor County Florida townhome construction Taylor County Florida structural steel construction Taylor County Florida low-income housing Taylor County Florida concrete tilt-up Taylor County Florida high-rise construction Taylor County Florida institutional building Taylor County Florida casino resort Taylor County Florida landscaping construction Taylor County Florida custom home Taylor County Florida parking structure Taylor County Florida Medical building 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

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

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

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

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

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

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

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

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

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

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

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Contractor Burns Down Home, Insurer Refuses Coverage

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Insurance Firm Under No Duty to Defend in Hawaii Construction Defect Case

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

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

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

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

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

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    California Lawyer Gives How-To on Pursuing a Construction Defect Claim

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

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

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

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    In Re Golba: The Knaubs v. Golba and Rollison, Debtors

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    Fourteen More Guilty Pleas in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

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

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    New Apartment Tower on the Rise in Seattle

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    After Katrina Came Homes that Could Withstand Isaac

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

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

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

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

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

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

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

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

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

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    McGrawHill Construction reports that 17 percent of new homes and remodels in 2011 were done with green building practices. Their report estimates that by 2016, this will rise to 29 to 38 percent of the market for home construction and remodeling.

    Consumers see the green buildings as more desirable, particularly where they are more energy efficient. Two thirds of builders noted their customers were interested in features that would lower the energy use of their homes. Consumers also feel that green building materials are more durable and see green homes as higher quality.

    Read the full story…


    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    July 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Perception Construction Management v. Bell. The Bells hired PCM to build a log home, agreeing to play monthly invoices in full within ten days. The Bells paid the first four invoices in full, part of the fifth, and ceased payment after that. Beofre seventh invoice, the Bells terminated the contract and hired a new contractor. PCM filed a claim of lien and ceased work.

    The Bells responded that PCM was in breach of contract and had failed to fulfill the contract in a workmanlike manner. They claimed construction defects and in the lien suit, sought to include testimony from an architect and a plumber reviewing PCM’s work. The court only allowed the architect to testify as to whether the amount of the lien was reasonable. No testimony was permitted from the plumber.

    The Idaho Supreme Court concluded that the claims of construction defects were important to case and remanded it to the lower court for a new trial taking into evidence that Bell’s contention that PCM’s work was defective.

    Read the court’s decision


    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, contending it had no obligation to defend two related underlying construction defect cases. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. R.L.Lantana Boatyard, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2466 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2012).

    An engineering report noted design construction defects and deficiencies in visible, physical improvements at The Moorings at Lantana Condominium. In two lawsuits, The Moorings sued the developer, R.L. Lantana Boatyard ("RLLB"), and the contractor, Current Builders of Florida.

    Current Builders was insured by Amerisure. RLLB was named as an additional insured under the Amerisure policy.

    Read the full story…

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


    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    August 4, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    In the US District Court for Illinois, Judge William Hibber has rejected the request for summary judgment sought by the developers of a condominium building in the case of Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1735 W. Diversey, LLC (the insureds). The insureds renovated a building at 1735 W. Diversey, Chicago, converting it into condominiums. After the project was completed and all units sold, and a condominium association form, one of the owners found that unit suffered leaks during rainstorms. The condo board hired a firm, CRI, to investigate the cause of the leakage. CRI found “water infiltration through the exterior brick masonry walls, build-up of efflorescence on the interior surfaces of the masonry, and periodic spalling of portions of the brick masonry.”

    The redevelopment firm had purchased coverage from Nautilus. “Shortly after the Board filed its first complaint, the Insureds tendered the mater to Nautilus and requested that it indemnify and defend them from the Board's underlying claims. Nautilus, however, rejected the Insureds’ tender and denied coverage under both insurance policies.” Nautilus stated that the water leakage did not constitute an occurrence under the policies. The court cited these policies in which an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The Illinois courts have determined that construction defects are not accidents.

    The court concluded that the insured did not bring forth claims within the coverage of the policies and denied the motion for summary judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    March 1, 2011 — Original Story by Lori Bauman, Ater Wynne LLP, Northwest Business Litigation Blog

    In Abraham v. T. Henry, Oregon’s court of appeals held that a Oregon’s court of appeals holds that a homeowner may sue builder for common law negligence absent a contractual provision that forecloses such a claim. Plaintiff homeowners hired defendant contractors to build a house. When plaintiffs discovered defects in the construction years later, they sued for negligence.

    The Court of Appeals held that the parties’ contractual relationship did not prevent a negligence claim, and that plaintiffs were entitled to pursue a negligence per se claim based on a violation of the Oregon Building Code.

    The Supreme Court affirmed, but on a somewhat different basis. First, according to the Court, a construction defect claim concerns damage to property — and not mere economic losses — and thus is not barred by the economic loss doctrine. Second, the existence

    Read Full Story...


    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


    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Hawaii State Senate voted down Senate Bill 2692. Had it been passed, the State Building Code Council would have been abolished and building codes would have become the responsibility of county governments. The bill was opposed by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Their director of code development, Wanda Edwards said that the bill “would have undermined key components that are essential to an effective state building code regime.”

    Read the full story…


    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Although most are unlikely to change the Boston skyline, there are several large projects on the drawing boards. The site BostInnovation covered ten of them in a recent post. Downtown Boston will be the site of several of these large projects, including three towers to be added to the Christian Science Plaza, a 404-unit residential tower in the Theater District, and perhaps the largest of these projects, a 47-story tower to be built over Copley Plaza, which will tower over the adjacent buildings. None of the planned buildings will challenge the Hancock Tower’s 60 stories.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Martha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.

    In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.

    Read the full story…


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

    March 5, 2011 — By CDCoverage.com, March 5, 2011

    In American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hathaway Development Co., Inc., No. S10G0521 (Ga. March 7, 2011), insured plumbing subcontractor Whisnant was sued by general contractor Hathaway seeking damages for costs incurred by Hathaway in repairing damage to property other than Whisnant’s plumbing work resulting from Whisnant’s negligently performed plumbing work on three separate projects. On one project, Whisnant installed a pipe smaller

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    One of the odder twists of the Las Vegas construction defect scandal was the charge that Nancy Quon’s boyfriend helped her in an initial suicide attempt. Quon, implicated by not charged in the case of taking control of homeowner boards in order to profit from construction defect settlements. William Webb was alleged to have bought the drug GBH in order to allow Quon, his girlfriend, to commit suicide. Ms. Quon later overdosed on a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.

    In addition to pleading guilty to the drug charges, Webb also made a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he did not admit guilt in an insurance fraud charge, but acknowledged that prosecutors would likely be successful at obtaining a conviction. Webb will be sentenced February 7 and is expected to receive a sentence of six years imprisonment.

    Read the full story…


    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    California safety officials are looking into the circumstances surrounding the death of a construction worker who fell from a roof in Tiburon, California. Another worker found Gabriel Vasquez unconscious at the site. Vasquez was later pronounced dead. The State Division of Occupational Safety and Health are trying to determine how Vasquez fell.

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    April 18, 2011 — April 18, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    Albert Wolf, a principal in Wolf Slatkin & Madison P. C., has written an interesting article on statutes of limitations in construction defect claims in Colorado. While Wolf states that in most cases, “construction defect claims against construction industry participants (contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, etc.) requires that suits be started within two years after construction defects have been or should have been—in the exercise of reasonable diligence (care)—discovered,” if a project used the AIA General Conditions (AIA Document A2010) before the 2007 edition, the “statutes of limitations begin to run (accrue) at either substantial completion or breach by the contractor (installation of defective work), depending on the circumstances.”

    “That’s a huge difference,” Wolf writes in his article. “For example, if the structural defect caused by faulty foundation work is not discovered or discoverable until walls begin to exhibit cracking more than two years after the building is completed, the owner’s claim against the contractor may be barred if the AIA provision is applied.”

    Read the full story...


    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

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

    Although the insureds disclosed flooding problems in the basement, the buyers purchased their home. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. McInerney, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1130 (Ill Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011). In a supplemental disclosure, the insureds reported that during heavy rains light seepage occurred in the basement.

    After moving in, the buyers experienced significant water infiltration and flooding in the basement. The buyers and their children also began to experience mold-related illnesses.

    The buyers sued for rescission of the contract or, in the alternative, damages. They alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In the claim for negligent misrepresentation, the buyers alleged that the insureds carelessly omitted the fact that there were material defects in the basement and foundation when they should have known of such defects.

    Read the full story…

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


    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”

    Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

    Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”

    On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    July 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Coverage of the ongoing litigation concerning the Harmon Hotel continues to proliferate. Architectural Record and a number of other news outlets continue to provide additional details and coverage of the matter. Chief among the conditions alleged are improperly installed reinforcing steel inside link beams on 15 floors. MGM Claims that the conditions amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, while Perini (the builder) indicated in a July 12th statement that the buildings problems are related to the design, and the they are “fixable.”

    There is significant speculation that MGM Resorts International isn’t interested in repairing the hotel due to a glut of hotel rooms attendant to the troubled economy. In a statement Tuesday Perini reportedly stated that “Repairing and opening the Harmon would only create a greater glut of unused hotel rooms for MGM,” “If market conditions were better and MGM found that demand existed for the Harmon hotel rooms, MGM would not be claiming that the Harmon is unstable.”

    MGM asserts that Perini failed to ”properly construct” the project. Clark County’s Department of Development Services has reportedly asked MGM to provide a plan to fix the project by August 15th.

    The Harmon is part of the $8.5 billion CityCenter project that opened in the fourth quarter of 2009 and is jointly owned by MGM Resorts and Dubai World.

    Prior reports indicated that the owner (MGM) had considered razing the entire project. The future of the project remains uncertain.