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

    Michigan Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Mecosta County Michigan

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Mecosta County Michigan

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Colorado “occurrence”

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

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

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

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

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

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend in Water Intrusion Case

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

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

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

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

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

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

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

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

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Construction Defect Lawsuits? There’s an App for That

    Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    SB800 Cases Approach the Courts

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

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

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

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

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

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

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Builder to Appeal Razing of Harmon Tower

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Virginia Homebuilding Slumps After Last Year’s Gain

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

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

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Construction Defects and Contractor-Owners

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Construction Defect Destroys Home, Forty Years Later

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

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

    MECOSTA COUNTY MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Mecosta County, Michigan Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Mecosta County, Michigan

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    March 25, 2011 — Alicante HOA Website

    According to recent posts in the Alicante HOA website, construction experts and legal counsel have been retained. The HOA board has been informed that testing of a variety of the building’s components are underway or will begin in the near future.

    Read More...


    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    October 28, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The pollution exclusion barred coverage for alleged property damage and bodily injury in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Harbor Walk Dev., LLC, No. 2:10cv312 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 2011).

    Homeowners sued the insured, Harbor Walk, in three lawsuits, alleging the Chinese drywall installed in their homes emitted sulfides and other noxious gases. This caused corrosion and damage to the air-conditioning and ventilation units, refrigeration coils, copper tubing, faucets, metal surfaces, electrical appliances and other personal items. The homeowners also alleged the compounds emitted by the drywall caused bodily injury, such as allergic reactions, headaches, etc.

    Harbor Walk’s insurer, Evanston, filed for a declaratory judgment that the pollution exclusion precluded coverage.

    Read the full story...

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


    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    You can buy a lot of bandages for $270 million, but even though the expenses are related to the New York City schools, the money is being budgeted by the School Construction Agency as what they expect to pay for injuries and liability expenses related to school construction. The New York Post notes that this is nearly ten times what the city spent in 2000 on workers' compensation and liability claims. Michael Elmdendorf of the General Contractors Association likened injury compensation to a broken slot machine, telling the Post, "when you pull that lever, you win." A spokesperson from the Department of Education, Margie Feinberg, attributed the rise to higher medical care costs.

    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…


    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    February 25, 2011 — Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog - February 25, 2011

    This article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010

    1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

    After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.

    The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).

    2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)

    Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.


    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    June 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

    Read the full story…


    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    September 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has rejected a motion by a homeowner in a dispute with the contractor who built an extension to his home. In McCracken v. Pirvulete, Mr. McCracken filed a mechanics lien after Mr. Pirvulete failed to complete payment. The matter went to trial with a series of exhibits that showed “the contractual relationship was strained and the parties disagreed over performance and payment.” As a result of the trial, the court awarded Mr. McCracken, the contractor, $1,922.22.

    Mr. Pirvulete appealed, contending that the court had not allowed his daughter to act as a translator, that the court had failed to give him sufficient time to present his case, that the mechanics lien should have been dismissed, and several other claims, all before a formal judgment was issued. After the court formalized its judgment and rejected the appeal, Mr. Pirvulete appealed again.

    The appeals court found that Mr. Pirvulete did not provide an adequate record for review. The court dismissed Mr. Pirvulete’s claims. The court notes that Mr. Pirvulete claimed that a request for a discovery period was denied, however, he has provided neither the request nor the denial. The trial court has no record of either.

    Nor was there a record of a request that Mr. Pirvulete’s daughter provide translation. The court notes, “so far as we can glean from the record provided, the Register of Actions states, ‘Trial to proceed without Romanian Interpreter for Defendant; Daughter present to interpret if needed.’” Additionally, the court found that “there has been no showing that his facility with the English language is or was impaired in any way or that there was any portion of any proceeding, which he did not understand.”

    Further, the appeals court found there were no grounds for a new trial, despite Mr. Pirvulete’s filings. The court concluded, “The owner has failed to provide a record adequate for review of most, if not all, of the claims of error. Some issues are not cognizable because they relate to entirely separate proceedings, and not the trial below. To the limited extent that the claims are examinable, the owner has made no showing of error.” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court against Mr. Pirvulete.

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The US District Court for Hawaii has granted a motion for summary judgment in Evanston Insurance v. Nagano. The case is related to a construction defect claim, Hu v. Nagano, and the issue at hand is whether Evanston Insurance is obligated to defend the Naganos in the underlying case.

    The Hus hired Eric Nagano and his firm PMX to construct a house. Mr. Nagano’s firm was insured by Evanston, however, he lost his contractor’s license in “approximately March 2006.” Mr. Nagano sought the Hus’ authorization to allow HC Builders to take over the contract. HC Builders is headed by Mr. Nagano’s wife, Hiroko, who has held a contractor’s license since “approximately September 2006.” Ms. Nagano and HC Builders were also insured by Evanston Insurance. The house, started by PMX was finished by HC Builders.

    The Hus authorized construction to begin in July 2003, but “construction did not commence until approximately October 2004 and, even after commencement, there were numerous delays resulting in months of inactivity on the Project.” The Hus had expressed to Mr. Nagano and PMX “that the construction period could not exceed twelve months after July 1, 2003.” As a result of the delays, “the Hus’ community association fined them because of the prolonged construction and the Hus’ construction lender assessed extension fees and fines for exceeding the term of the loan.”

    The Hus noted that the project did not have a licensed contractor from March through September 2006. In the end, the Hus “allege that Defendants did not fulfill the obligations under the Construction Contract,” and that “the Project was ‘grossly delayed’ and the construction was ‘riddled with defects.’” Despite an Owner’s Notice of Completion filed in December 2007, the residence “had no electricity, no hot water, ... no installed appliances” and “parts of the flooring were either missing or incomplete.” And then it leaked.

    The Naganos tendered the defense to Evanston. The Naganos “allege the defense is limited because Evanston: allowed default to be entered against the Naganos (the default was later set aside); delayed retaining experts; and limited the ability of the Naganos’ retained counsel to perform necessary actions to advance the case.” Evanston argues that it “does not have a duty to defend or indemnify Defendants against the Hus’ claims,” as the Hus’ claims are not covered under the policy. Further, the PMX policies have an exclusion for breach of contract.

    The court concluded that all of the claims made by the Hus were based in contract and therefore were outside of the terms of the Naganos insurance coverage, as the courts have "construed Hawaii law as not providing for insurance coverage for contract related claims." Therefore, Evanston does not have a duty to defend the Naganos.

    Read the court’s decision…


    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


    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    VegasInc.com reports that U.S. District Judge James Mahan has unsealed fourteen more criminal cases in the ongoing Las Vegas HOA corruption probe. One of the fourteen is Lisa Kim, whose Platinum Community Services managed communities in which Nancy Quon and Leon Benzer were involved.

    Two attorneys were also named. Brian Jones had previously been named in civil litigation as working to rig HOA elections in favor of the straw buyers. Jeanne Winkler had done legal work for one of the communities and for the developer before her disbarment.

    Eight of the names released were of alleged straw buyers. These individuals are said to have bought fractional shares of homes so they could stand for election on the HOA boards. One of the individuals named, Arnold Meyers, had sued the Jasmine Homeowners Association, claiming that their HOA elections were tainted. Myers claimed that homeowners received postcards stating that he did not own his condo. His suit was dropped after two homeowners claimed that their names had been forged on Meyer’s affidavits.

    Read the full story…


    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.

    Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.

    On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    April 14, 2011 — April 14, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    The Florida Property Bill (HBB 803) was passed by the Economic Affairs Committee by a vote of 11-7, according to Property Casualty 360, after adopting nine new amendments. The additions to the bill included limiting notice of claims to a set number of years, extending the statute of limitation on property claims from five years to six years, among others.

    HB 803 and SB 408, the Senate companion bill, focus primarily on residential property insurance. They make changes to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, while also promoting increased notification of policy changes to policyholders. Sections of the bills provide minor fixes such as renaming Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to Taxpayer-Funded Property Insurance Corporation. However, other sections of the bills contain more significant policy changes such as sinkhole coverage and hurricane claims.

    The bills’ intent, according to the SunSentinel.com, is to reduce fraudulent claims and to bring new insurers into the insurance market. However, SunSentinel.com also reports that the bills may drastically increase property insurance premiums.

    Read the full Property Casualty 360 article...

    Read the full Sun Sentinel article...


    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    November 18, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Exclusions barred the homeowners from recovering for losses caused by Chinese drywall in their home. Ross v. C. Adams Const. & Design, L.L.C., 2011 La. App. LEXIS 769 (La. Ct. App., released for publication Oct. 5, 2011).

    Two years after purchasing their home, the Rosses began experiencing chronic malfunctions in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. After discovering the presence of gypsum drywall, or "Chinese drywall", they submitted a claim to their insurer, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company, for damages caused by the Chinese drywall. Louisiana Citizens denied the claim.

    The Rosses sued. The trial court granted summary judgment to Louisiana Citizens based upon exclusions in the policy.

    On appeal, the appellate court first agreed the Rosses had sustained a direct physical loss. The inherent qualities of the Chinese drywall created a physical loss to the home and the drywall had to be removed and replaced.

    Read the full story…

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


    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.

    The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”

    Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”

    Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”

    The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”

    The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.

    The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

    September 1, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

    In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

    The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

    Read the full story…

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


    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Grout, which was used to protect the steel support cables of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, may lead to problems instead. The Baltimore Sun reports that the Federal Highway Administration is looking at three dozen bridges in twenty-one states that were built with defective grout. The grout contains high levels of chlorides, which can lead to corrosion. The collapse of pedestrian walkway in Concord, North Carolina was attributed to chloride contamination in the grout.

    The grout, SikaGrout 300PT, was advertised as "non-corrosive, does not contain chlorides," but later testing showed that it contained levels that exceeded limits by 400 percent. Throughout the country, about 16 million pounds of this were used. Sika Corp. suspended production of the grout in 2010. If repairs need to be made, it is unclear who will pay.

    Read the full story…


    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    JDi Data of Fort Lauderdale, Florida has announced that they are about to release a mobile app for their Vendor Cost Control service. Their mobile app is a web app, and so can be used by customers on the iOS, Android, or Blackberry platforms. It provides a secure link to their database with no risk of releasing proprietary information. JDi Data notes that their product will allow users to “track their full subscribed case listings,” give them “easy access to carrier allocations, payments, and outstanding balances reports,” and to “call or email case managers directly from their mobile application.

    James DeRosa, the founder of JDi Data says that “pushing the boundaries of technology has enabled us to further our goal of providing credible reporting and cost allocation expertise to insured, carriers and the legal community.”

    Read the full story…


    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

    Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

    The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

    Read the full story…