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

    Montana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 389; Code Section 70-19-427 requires homeowners to provide notice of an alleged construction defect before filing a lawsuit. The contractor has the option to offer to inspect the defect, repair the defect, offer a settlement or dispute the claim. After being served with written notice, the contractor has 21 days to respond: offer to inspect the defect, repair the defect, offer a settlement or dispute the claim.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Prairie County Montana

    Businesses must register with the Secretary of State. No state license is required for general contracting. Licensure is required for plumbing, electrical, and crane operating trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Helena Building Industry Association
    Local # 2766
    3180 Dredge Dr Ste B
    Helena, MT 59602
    http://www.helenabia.com

    Missoula Building Industry Association
    Local # 2788
    1840 S Ave W
    Missoula, MT 59801
    http://www.buildmissoula.com

    Montana Home Builders Association
    Local # 2700
    1717 11th Ave
    Helena, MT 59601
    http://www.montanabia.com

    Bitterroot Building Industry Association
    Local # 2729
    PO Box 1299
    Hamilton, MT 59840
    http://wwwbbiamontana.org

    Rocky Mountain Chapter
    Local # 2750
    PO Box 154
    Anaconda, MT 59711


    Home Builders Association of Great Falls
    Local # 2744
    600 6th St NW Ste 5
    Great Falls, MT 59404


    Home Builders Association of Billings
    Local # 2722
    PO Box 875
    Billings, MT 59103
    http://www.hbabillings.net


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Prairie County Montana

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

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

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

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

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

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

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Rihanna Finds Construction Defects Hit a Sour Note

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

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

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    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

    Firm Sued For Construction Defects in Parking Garage

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Alleging Construction Defects Pled as Breach of Contract

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

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

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

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

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

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

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

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

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

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

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

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

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

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Partial Settlement in DeKalb Construction Management Case

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

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

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Plaintiff Not Entitled to Further Damages over Defective Decking

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Ghost Employees Steal Jobs from Legit Construction Firms

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

    Geometrically Defined Drainage Cavities in EIFS as a Guard Against Defects

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

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

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

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

    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

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

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Yellow Brass Fittings Play a Crucial Role in Baker v Castle & Cooke Homes

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

    Contractor’s Home Not Covered for Construction Defects

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

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

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Judge Okays Harmon Tower Demolition, Also Calls for More Testing

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions
    Corporate Profile

    PRAIRIE COUNTY MONTANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Prairie County, Montana Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Prairie County's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Prairie County, Montana

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    June 7, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Under a new law, Texas HB 274, the Texas Supreme Court will be making rules for motions to dismiss and to expedite suits of less than $100,000. The law also contains two “loser pays” provisions. If a lawsuit is found dismissed for having “no basis in fact or law,” the losing side must pay attorney costs. The other provision caps award of attorney fees if plaintiffs reject settlement offers. Texas Lawyer quotes Houston attorney Mike Gallagher as saying this will affect “the practice of everyone who handles significant lawsuits.”

    Gregory Marcum, whose practice includes construction defect litigation, plans to contact insurance companies, as the new law may save them money. “It will definitely be a factor in the defense strategy for handling a case.” He notes that “any insurance carrier would want that done.”

    Marcum notes that the offer-of-settlement rules only apply when cases go to trial. “Almost all cases settle.”

    Read HB 274

    Read the full story…


    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


    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    June 29, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Associated General Contractors of America reported Tuesday, June 28 that construction employment increased in 120 of the 337 metropolitan areas surveyed between May 2010 and May 2011.

    ‘While construction employment has stopped plunging, any sign of a recovery remains spotty at best,” said Ken Simonson, the association’s chief economist. ‘The close to even split between areas adding and losing jobs is a reminder that for every market doing well, there is another market that is still hurting.”

    The largest number of jobs created was in the Dallas, Texas region, with 5,600 new jobs, a five percent increase. The northern Massachusetts/southern New Hampshire region near Haverhill saw the greatest percentage increase, although that twenty-two percent increase represents only 800 new jobs. The Chicago, Illiinois area added 4,600 jobs, a four percent increase.

    Other regions were not so lucky. The Atlanta, Georgia area saw a loss of 7,400 jobs, an eight percent loss. Las Vegas also lost 7,400 jobs, which there represented a sixteen percent decline. The New York City area lost 6,700 jobs, a six percent reduction. The Riverside, California area lost 5,300 jobs, a nine percent loss.

    Stephen E. Sandherr, the association’s chief executive officer, blamed a combination of regulation and budget squeezes. "Some in Washington never met a regulation they didn’t like and others never found a penny they didn’t want to pinch. Together that makes for a bad way to boost employment and a great way to stifle the private sector and neglect critical economic infrastructure.”

    Read the full story…


    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    December 20, 2012 — Heidi Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    The recently decided case of Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company (Colo. Ct. App. 10CA2638, October 25, 2012), confirms that absent specific exclusions in the policy, a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy covers damages to non-defective property arising from a builder’s own defective workmanship.

    Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. (“Colorado Pool”) was hired as a subcontractor to install a swimming pool at Founders Village Pool and Community Center (“Founders Village”) in Castle Rock, Colorado.  After the concrete shell of the pool was placed, some of the rebar frame was found to be too close to the surface.  Founders Village demanded that Colorado Pool remove and replace the pool, and Colorado Pool contacted its insurance carrier, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), with which Colorado Pool held a CGL policy.  After inspecting the pool, Scottsdale’s claims adjuster stated that the insurance policy would cover losses associated with removing and replacing the pool.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com


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

    October 23, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The issue faced by the Minnesota Supreme Court was whether the insurer had a duty to disclose the insured's interest in obtaining a written explanation of an arbitration award that identified the claims of recovery and the portions of the award attributable to each. Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 LEXIS Minn. 404 (Minn. Sup. Ct., Aug. 22, 2012).

    Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. ("RDI") built an addition for the homeowners and installed windows in the original part of the house. After construction began, the homeowners also asked RDI to fix the master bedroom window in the original part of the house.

    After completion of the project, the house sustained storm damage.

    Read the full story…

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


    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A settlement agreement between Conti Electric and Westgate Resorts has lead to a delay in starting the trial over construction defect claims and billing disputes over Hilton Grand Vacations a time share tower in Las Vegas. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the dispute includes claims of $23.3 million owed to the general contractor against which the developer has placed $30 million in construction defect claims.

    Read the full story…


    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    October 23, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insureds' home was built in 1989. In 2006, extensive water damage was found to the house. The insureds notified their carrier, Chubb. The insureds had coverage for all risks unless stated otherwise in the policy or if an exclusion applied.

    Chubb hired an adjustor who determined that defective construction had enabled water to enter the wall and beam systems. Chubb denied coverage under the faulty planning, construction or maintenance exclusion.

    Read the full story…

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


    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    November 7, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Accusations are coming from both sides over construction defects at a Las Vegas tower, only this time, it’s not the Harmon Towers, it’s Hilton Grand Vacations, which is part of the Planet Hollywood Resort. The project was originally dubbed PH Towers Westgate, and it was developed by Westgate Resorts, which is suing the contractor, Tutor-Saliba for $10 million over late completion and construction defects.

    Among the defects Westgate is claiming are cracked floor tiles in the valet lobby and cracks and delamination of the pool deck. Tutor-Saliba argues that the failure of the valet lobby floor is due to Westgate specifying only 1/16th inch-wide grouting, instead of the specified ¬º inch, and Westgate’s refusal to allow expansion joints on the pool deck has lead to problems there. Westgate’s attorney, Robert Schumacher, attributes the problems to “shoddy construction practices.”

    According to the article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, plans were only 60 percent complete when construction began, leading to “thousands of change orders.” Despite not meeting an August completion deadline, Tutor-Saliba is claiming it is owed a $1.5 million bonus nevertheless.

    Read the full story…


    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Harmon Towers project in Las Vegas was eventually halted short of the planned forty-seven stories after “it was determined that there was substantial defective construction, including defective installation of reinforcing steel throughout the Harmon.” The American Home Insurance Company and Lexington Insurance Company put forth a claim that they had no duty to defend Perini Construction, the builder of the defective Harmon Towers. Further, American Home seeks to recover the monies American reimbursed Perini. The United States District Court of Nevada ruled in the case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Perini Building on February 3, 2012.

    The two insurance companies covered Perini and its subcontractors, Century Steel, Pacific Coast Steel, and Ceco Concrete Construction. Century Steel was the initial subcontractor for the reinforcing steel; they were later acquired by Pacific Coast Steel. In this current case, Perini Construction is the sole defendant.

    Perini sought a dismissal of these claims, arguing that without the subcontractors joined to the case, “the Court cannot afford complete relief among existing parties.” The court rejected this claim, noting that the court can determine the duties of the insurance companies to Perini, which the court described as “separate and distinct from those of the subcontractors.” The subcontractors “have not claimed an interest in the subject matter of the action.” The court concluded that it could determine whether Perini was entitled or not to coverage without affecting the subcontractors. The court rejected Perini’s claim.

    Perini also asked the court to abstain from the case, arguing that it was better heard in a state court. The court noted that several considerations cover whether a case is heard in state or federal courts. The court noted that if the case weighed heavily on state law, the state courts would be the obvious location. Further, if there were a parallel action in the state courts, “there is a presumption that the whole suit should be heard in state courts.” This is, however, no parallel state suit, although the court noted that Perini has “threatened” to do so.

    However, the issue of who is to blame for the problems at Harmon Towers has not been resolved. The court concluded that until the “underlying action” was concluded, it was premature to consider the issues raised in this case while the earlier lawsuit was still in progress. The court denied Perini’s motion to dismiss the case. Given that the outcome of the earlier construction defect case may lead to further litigation in state court, the District Court granted Perini’s motion to abstain, but staying their judgment until the construction defect case is resolved.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    August 2, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Welders working on Pier 29 in San Francisco were preparing the building for the America’s Cup sailing race. Instead, they accidentally caused $2.4 million in damages. Mindy Talmadge, a fire department spokesperson, attributed the fire to crews welding a latter to a wall. According to Talmadge, a spark entered a crack in the concrete wall and “the wood on the building underneath was really dry.” It took firefighters more than two hours to extinguish the blaze.

    Read the full story…


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

    August 11, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    The City of Seattle has one of the most stringent energy codes in the nation. Based upon the Washington State Energy Code (which has been embroiled in litigation over its high standards), the code demands a lot from commercial developers. But, does it prevent developers from saving Seattle?s classic and old buildings? Perhaps.

    The general compliance procedure requires buildings to be examined during the permitting process. This means that buildings are examined before they begin operating. The procedure is not malleable and is applicable to all buildings, old and new, big and small.

    The downside of this procedure is that it eliminates awarding compliance to those buildings exhibiting a number of passive features, such as siting, thermal mass, and renewable energy production. This problem has prevented a number of interesting and architecturally pleasing existing building retrofits from getting off the ground. The cost of complying with the current system can be 20% more, and it might prevent builders from preserving a building?s historical integrity.

    Read the full story…

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

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

    May 24, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

    Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

    “Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

    In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

    Read the court’s decision


    Texas Construction Firm Files for Bankruptcy

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Texas construction firm, founded in 1937, filed for bankruptcy, bringing twenty-two projects to a sudden halt, and resulting in the loss of jobs for hundreds of employees. Ballenger Construction told its employees to go home, as it could not complete the jobs. In some cases, work will need to be done to ensure that the work sites do not cause public safety hazards.

    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


    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    February 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    April 7, 2011 — April 7, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    Deborah Sullivan Brennan of the North County Times reported that seven former dumps in San Diego are leaking contaminants into the surrounding groundwater. John R. Odermatt, a senior engineering geologist for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board s San Diego region, told the North County Times, “the risk to most county residents is very small or negligible, while local water supplies located in more rural areas may be at a somewhat elevated but unquantified level of risk.”

    This issue is causing heavy scrutiny of a new proposed landfill in Gregory Canyon. The landfill would be located on 308 acres of undeveloped land near Pala, alongside the San Luis Rey River. The group “Save Gregory Canyon” has been speaking out against the landfill, stating that “the project threatens major detrimental impacts to both surface and groundwater, as well as a potential compromise of the two major San Diego Water Authority pipelines nearby.” Richard Felago, a Gregory Canyon Ltd. Consultant, told the North County Times that the 8-foot-thick liner, composed of layers of gravel and synthetic material, would not leak.

    The appeal hearing is being rescheduled later this month after one of the three panelists recused himself due to having a competing interest in the property, according to the article by Gary Warth in the North County Times.

    Read the full story (link 1)...
    Read the full story (link 2)...


    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

    Read the full story…


    Former Zurich Executive to Head Willis North America Construction Insurance Group

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Insurance Journal reports that Sean McGroarty will be directing surety operations for their construction practice in North America. Previously, Mr. McGroarty was the senior vice president and head of international surety with Zurich Financial Services. He has also worked for Liberty Mutual Group and the St. Paul Companies.

    Mr. McGroarty will be leading a team of professionals offering brokerage services for contract and commercial surety.

    Read the full story…