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

    Oregon Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (HB 2525 Chap. 701; HB2389) If an owner sends a builder a notice of defect within the time allowed for the owner to commence a court action against that contractor, the time for the owner to commence the action shall be extended, notwithstanding any statute of limitation or statute of ultimate repose, until the later of 120 days after written receipt of builders intention to repair, replace the defect, make monetary compensation or reject the claim. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 14 days to inspect the alleged defect. They then have no more than 90 days to communicate their intention The homebuyer must respond to the builder response within 30 days of receipt. The law requires builder notifies homebuyer of NOR before purchase.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Powers Oregon

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Josephine Cty Oregon
    Local # 3848
    223 NE B St Ste B
    Grants Pass, OR 97526
    http://www.homebuildersofjoco.com

    Umpqua Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 3816
    3000 Stewart Parkway Suite 206
    Roseburg, OR 97471
    http://www.umpquavalleyhba.org

    Klamath Basin Home Builders Association
    Local # 3855
    205 Riverside Drive Ste G
    Klamath Falls, OR 97601
    http://www.kbhba.org

    Home Builders Association of Jackson County
    Local # 3836
    1006 E Jackson St
    Medford, OR 97504
    http://www.hbajc.com

    Home Builders Association of Southwestern Oregon
    Local # 3888
    PO Box 696
    Coos Bay, OR 97420
    http://www.hbaswo.org

    Curry County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3851
    PO Box 1689
    Brookings, OR 97415


    Central Oregon Builders Association
    Local # 3810
    61396 S Hwy 97 Ste 203
    Bend, OR 97702
    http://www.coba.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Powers Oregon

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

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

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

    Insurer Settles on Construction Defect Claim

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

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

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

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

    Construction Defect Destroys Home, Forty Years Later

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    Florida Construction Defect Case Settled for $3 Million

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

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    New Web Site Tracks Settled Construction Defect Claims

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

    Housing Market on Way to Recovery

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

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

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

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

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

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

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Court Sends Construction Defect Case from Kansas to Missouri

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

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    No “Special Relationship” in Oregon Construction Defect Claim

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

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

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

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

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

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

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

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

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

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

    Construction Spending Dropped in July

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Florida Law: Defects in Infrastructure Improvements Not Covered in Home Construction Warranties

    Builder Cannot Receive Setoff in Construction Defect Case

    Cabinetmaker Exceeds Expectations as Conditions Improve

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country
    Corporate Profile

    POWERS OREGON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Powers, Oregon 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
    Powers, Oregon

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Prairie Business reports that Fargo is experiencing the most new construction it has ever seen, totaling $434 million in value, which exceeds the previous high in 2006 of $428 million. Many of the construction starts are for single family homes, although there is also an increase in construction of apartments and townhomes.

    The Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead also noted that there was also a large of remodeling projects. Terry Becker, the president of the HBA, said that “remodeling is just huge right now.”

    Read the full story…


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

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

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

    Read the full story…

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


    Construction Defect Destroys Home, Forty Years Later

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Fire investigators in Monroe, North Carolina have blamed a nail as the source of a fire that lead to a home being declared a total loss. The nail, part of the original construction, nicked a wire within a wall, causing a short, which started a fire. The home was built in the late 1960s.

    WBTV reported that the homeowner was awakened by a power outage. He went outside and saw flames coming from a vent in the roof. He was unable to contain the fire with a garden hose. Neighbors called firemen who were able to stop the blaze.

    Read the full story…


    Will They Blow It Up?

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The issues concerning the Harmon Towers building in Las Vegas continue to make their way through the courts. As we noted in a previous piece, Cook County building officials stated that the building could be a hazard if Las Vegas were struck by an earthquake. The question of whether the building will continue to stand is just one of the issues in front of a judge.

    MGM Resorts International argued at a March 13 hearing for permission to implode the Harmon hotel building. They claim that more than 1,700 defects have been discovered in the building and that the building is a public safety hazard. Arguing against demolition, Perini Building Company, the general contractor for the hotel, and its subcontractors are claiming that imploding the building would destroy evidence and prejudice juries in the ongoing construction defect claims. They claim that MGM Resorts wishes to abandon the building due to the economic slowdown. Perini Corp, the contractor for the project, claims that the building can be fixed. Perini claims that MGM’s position in the construction trial would be improved if the building is demolished.

    After Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez heard the four days of testimony on the Harmon Towers building and whether it should be demolished, she scheduled more testimony, with two days in April and an entire week in July. Judge Gonzalez will be deciding whether the building will be torn down, imploded, or left in place.

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…


    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    September 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Firms that skirt labor laws for construction workers can undercut firms that are obeying those laws. In a piece in Raleigh, North Carolina’s News & Observer, Doug Burton, a commercial masonry contractor summed it up: “my competitors are cheating.” The article describes the low-bidding firms “called their workers independent contractors ? or treated them like ghosts, paid under the table and never acknowledged.” The cost to the state is “unpaid medical bills for injured workers, uncollected business and personal taxes, and payments not made to a depleted state unemployment reserve.”

    One firm examined in the article, Martin’s Bricklaying, employs mostly immigrant Mexican laborers, many of whom are in the country illegally. One employee told the News & Observer, “we don’t complain.”

    Read the full story…


    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed a partial summary judgment issued by one of the lower courts in the case of The Retreat at Edisto Co-Owners Association v. The Retreat at Edisto. The underlying issues of the case deal with a construction defect complaint.

    The lower court had concluded “Developer’s ‘First Amendment’ to the Master Deed required the Developer to satisfy the provision in the paragraph labeled ‘Master Deed Amendment or Phase II’ as a condition precedent to its election to proceed with the development of Phase II.”

    The appeals court found that “the language of the First Amendment to the Master Deed is susceptible to more than one interpretation.” The court additionally concluded that the “Developer presented the requisite scintilla of evidence on the question of its intent in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact. As the material facts were in dispute, the appeals court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    January 6, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The Eighth Circuit determined a jury instruction regarding the applicability of the "all-risk" policy’s exclusion for "collapse" was inadequate. See KAAPA Ethanol, LLC v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22158 (8th Cir. Nov. 3, 2011).

    KAAPA had nine large, cylindrical, stainless steel tanks fabricated at its location. Soon after operations began in 2003, some of the tanks experienced unusual movement and began to shift. A geotechnical engineer found "silty clay" had been used for infill instead of compacted granular fill called for in engineering drawings. A year long plan to repair all nine tanks was implemented.

    Affiliated’s "all-risk" policy excluded damage caused by faulty workmanship. It also excluded damage caused by settling or cracking. The settling exclusion went on to provide, "This exclusion will not apply to loss or damage resulting from collapse of: a building or structure; or material part of a building or structure." Affiliated denied coverage because of the faulty workmanship and settling exclusions.

    Read the full story…

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


    Florida trigger

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

    In Johnson-Graham-Malone, Inc. v. Austwood Enterprises, Inc., No. 16-2009-CA-005750-XXXX-MA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Duval County, April 29, 2011), insured JGM was the general contractor for an apartment project completed in 1998. In 2007, the project owner sued JGM seeking damages for defective construction resulting in moisture penetration property damage. JGM tendered its defense to Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense. JGM defended and settled the underlying suit and then filed suit against Amerisure seeking recovery of defense and settlement costs. The trial court granted JGM’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court first addressed Amerisure’s duty to defend. Applying Florida law, the court held that, although the underlying complaint alleged that the property damage was not discovered until after expiration of the Amerisure policies

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration.

    The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this.

    PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint.

    Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.”

    The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.”

    As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    January 6, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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


    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    May 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Coverage for damages resulting from faulty workmanship in the construction of an apartment complex was at issue in The Bartram, LLC v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44535 (N.D. Fla. March 30, 2012).

    The owner of the apartments, Bartram, had primary coverage and three layers of excess coverage. Each contract excluded loss from faulty workmanship. The policies provided, however, "if loss or damage by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage."

    Bartram contended water intrusion occurred because of faulty workmanship, which caused damage to the buildings’ exterior and interior finishes, wood sheathing, framing, balcony systems, drywall ceilings and stucco walls. This damage was separate from the work needed to simply fix the faulty workmanship. Therefore, Bartram argued, the ensuing losses that resulted from the water intrusion was covered.

    The insurer argued the ensuing loss exception was not applicable if the ensuing loss was directly related to the original excluded loss.

    Read the full story…

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


    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    July 6, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Last November, mold problems were discovered at the Siena Condominiums in Montclair, New Jersey, which had been described by their developers as “an enclave of luxury in an urban village setting.” The owners have filed a lawsuit against Pinnacle Companies, Kohl Parnters, and Herod Development, seeking “compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, and for such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”

    According to the article on Baristanet.com, an engineering report commissioned by the condominium association revealed many problems, including improperly installed windows and siding. The developers commissioned two engineering reports themselves and found evidence of water pounding on the roof. Despite these reports and repeated promises, no repairs have been made.

    Read the full story…


    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    September 1, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., No. 26909 (S.C. Aug. 22, 2011), insured Crossman was the developer and general contractor of several condominium projects constructed by Crossman’s subcontractors over multiple years. After completion, Crossman was sued by homeowners alleging negligent construction of exterior components resulting in moisture penetration property damage to non-defective components occurring during multiple years.  Crossman settled the underlying lawsuit and then filed suit against its CGL insurers to recover the settlement amount.  Crossman settled with all of the insurers except for Harleysville.  Crossman and Harleysville stipulated that the only coverage issue was whether there was an “occurrence.”  The trial court subsequently entered judgment in favor of Crossman, determining that there was an “occurrence.” The trial court also ruled that Harleysville was liable for the entire settlement amount without offset for the amounts paid by the other insurers.  

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    OSHA announced that its current rules on fall protection for residential construction will remain in place until September 15, 2012. The current measures became effective in June 2011. Under the new rules, falls must be prevented by fall protection measures unless the measures can be shown to be unfeasible or even hazardous.

    Under the extension of the temporary enforcement measures, contractors who ask for compliance assistance with OSHA are given top priority and penalties can be reduced. OSHA has conducted more than 1,000 outreach sessions on the new rules.

    Read the full story…


    Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Jody T. Wright looks at “seven strategies being used around the country to identify, manage and mitigate your exposures” in a piece in Business Insurance. Wright, Senior VP, Construction Department Manager for Lockton Companies in Denver, gives seven simple steps from the perspective of a insurer.

    His first step is to match your project to your insurance. He suggests keeping the riskier projects separate, noting that from an insurer’s point-of-view, “any project that creates a homeowners association carries a higher potential threat of future litigation.” This leads to his second point: you need to “determine what makes your liability insurer nervous.” In other words, talk with your insurer.

    His third point suggests that builders look back and see if there is a pattern of problems that have lead to payouts from your insurer. Keep your insurer happier by making sure these areas don’t continue to be problems. Nor should you look for new problems. He suggests against leading in new technologies.

    Three more points deal with being careful about with whom you associate. He tells builders to negotiate their contracts, avoiding clauses that would obligate a builder to “indemnify the owner for the negligent work of others that they did not control.” Avoid subcontractors “with loss patterns that might affect your project and reputation.” Builders should identify “owners with a pattern of suing contractors” adding that risk to the cost of the job. They should also identify “the most effective attorneys and expert witnesses” and get them involved before the litigation starts.

    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…