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

    Kansas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 2294 requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim upon the contractor prior to filing a lawsuit. The law places deadlines on the contractor to serve notice on each subcontractor (15 days) and provide a written response to the claimant (30 days). It permits the claimant to file a lawsuit without further notice if the contractor disputes the claim, does not respond to the notice, does not complete work on the defect on a timely basis or does not make a payment in the time allowed.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Douglas County Kansas

    No state license for general contracting. All businesses must register with the Department of Revenue.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Salina
    Local # 1750
    2125 Crawford Place
    Salina, KS 67401
    http://www.salinahba.com

    Lawrence Home Builders Association
    Local # 1723
    PO Box 3490
    Lawrence, KS 66046
    http://www.lhba.net

    Topeka Home Builders Association
    Local # 1765
    1505 SW Fairlawn Rd
    Topeka, KS 66604
    http://www.thba.com

    Kansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 1700
    212 SW 8th Ave Ste 201
    Topeka, KS 66603
    http://www.kansasbuilders.org

    Flint Hills Area Builders Association
    Local # 1726
    2601 Anderson Ave Ste 207
    Manhattan, KS 66502
    http://www.flinthillsbuilders.com

    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460


    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504
    http://www.hutchbuilders.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Douglas County Kansas

    Court Consolidates Cases and Fees in Soil Construction Defect Case

    Australian Group Seeks Stronger Codes to Combat Dangerous Defects

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

    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

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

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    California Supreme Court Finds Associations Bound by Member Arbitration Clauses

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

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

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

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

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

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

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

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

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Defective Drains Covered Despite Water Intrusion Exclusion

    Florida trigger

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

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

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Utah Construction Defect Claims Dependant on Contracts

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Statute of Repose Dependant on When Subcontractors Finished

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

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

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

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

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

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

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

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

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

    New Construction Laws, New Forms in California

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

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Lawsuit over Construction Defects Not a Federal Case

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Ninety-Day Extension Denied to KB Home in Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Plaintiff Not Entitled to Further Damages over Defective Decking

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

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

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

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

    Discovery Ordered in Nevada Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    Residential Construction Down in San Diego

    Increased Expenditure on Injuries for New York City School Construction

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases
    Corporate Profile

    DOUGLAS COUNTY KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Douglas County, Kansas 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 Douglas 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
    Douglas County, Kansas

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

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…


    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    March 28, 2012 — Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law North Carolina

    Year-end economic indicators demonstrate that private commercial construction may be increasing in 2012, primarily as demand grows for new projects built in the United States.

    According to an article in Businessweek, the Architecture Billings Index held at 52 in December, indicating a modest expansion in the market. The American Institute of Architects said that the commercial and industrial component of the number climbed to 54.1 in December, the highest in 10 months.

    The monthly survey of U.S.-based architecture firms is one of the main indicators of nonresidential construction, and these numbers suggest that modest improvement may be on the horizon.

    The information is confirmed by data from the Census Bureau that shows that spending on lodging, office, commercial and manufacturing buildings grew 8.2 percent in November to $9.2 billion from a year ago. These types of commercial and industrial projects are historically canaries in the mine and are usually the first part of the industry to improve as the economy expands.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.


    Former New York Governor to Head Construction Monitoring Firm

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    David Paterson, who succeeded Eliot Spitzer as Governor of New York, has started a new venture after leaving the Governor’s office in construction integrity monitoring. WNYC reports that Paterson will be the majority owner of Icon Compliance Services, LLC, which will both conduct investigations and work with law enforcement officials. Paterson says that in government projects “often concessions are made for political reasons in the public sector and then you never really get a product that you paid for.”

    Paterson will be working with a former vice president of Bovis Construction, Brian Aryai, who is also a former U.S. Treasury Agent. Aryai said that “it is astounding that some of the fraud that has come to the surface in the recent past,” and describes it as “almost laughable they were not detected.” Aryai tipped federal prosecutors that Bovis had been over billing on projects for at least a decade.

    Read the full story…


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

    February 10, 2012 — Douglas Rieser, Builders Counsel

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

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

    Read the full story…

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


    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A federal judge dismissed a coverage lawsuit brought by Mid Continent Casualty Company against its insured, Greater Midwest Builders Ltd.

    Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action in response to a suit filed in Johnson County District Court, seeking a judicial determination that it had no coverage obligation for claims asserted against its insured. This case was stayed until the state court action entered judgment against the insured. The prevailing parties then commenced a garnishment action against the plaintiff, and another insurance company, in state court in Missouri. The court was asked whether it should lift the stay and proceed with the case, or decline jurisdiction in favor of resolution in the Missouri state court.

    The court granted the motion to dismiss holding that proceeding with the case would lead to protracted, piecemeal litigation, while deferring to the Missouri state court would decide all the claims involved in the dispute.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Construction Firm Charged for Creating “Hail” Damage

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A Burlington County, Pennsylvania judge has sentenced a firm and its employee for insurance fraud. In the scam, representatives of Precision Builders visited homes after hailstorms and advised homeowners that they could get new roofs and sidings covered by insurance. Many of the homeowners noted that they had not noticed any hail damage.

    After homeowners filed claims, employees of Precision Builders would visit the homes and damage the roofs and sidings consistent with the adjusters’ reports.

    One employee of Precision Builders, Dominik Sadowski, has pleaded guilty to third-degree insurance fraud. He has been sentenced to four years probation and 100 hours of community service. Another defendant, Marcin Gradziel, is alleged to have visited and damaged properties. He has plead not guilty.

    Read the full story…


    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…


    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    July 22, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    On July 13, 2011, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the US District Court issued a rule in the case of Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Univ. Facilities, Inc. (E.D. La., 2011). In this case, Stanley Smith Drywall was contracted by Capstone Building Corporation to “perform undisclosed work at the facility believed to involve the installation of drywall.” The project involved the design and construction of student residences for the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. In May, 2009, University Facilities, Inc. (UFI) sued Capstone Development Corporation and Capstone On-Campus Management.

    State Farm insured Stanley Smith Drywall and they sought a declaration that they have no duty: “(1) to insure Stanley Smith or CBC, or (2) to defend or indemnify any party against UFI's claims in the pending arbitration.” State Farm contends “(1) there is no "occurrence" to trigger coverage under the policy; (2) only breach of contract claims are asserted; (3) there is no property damage alleged; and (4) various coverage limitations and exclusions apply to prevent coverage.’

    The court concluded that “whether State Farm has a duty to defend in the arbitration must be determined by considering the claims asserted in the arbitration.” However, the arbitration claims were not made part of the record. There, “, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law State Farm's duty to defend on the present record.” The same was true of State Farm’s duty to indemnify. “Stanley Smith and CBC assert that State Farm's motion for summary judgment was filed before any discovery was conducted in the arbitration proceeding or in this case. The Court finds that State Farm has failed to develop the record sufficiently to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty to indemnify Stanley Smith or CBC in the arbitration.’

    The court denied State Farm’s motion for a summary judgment on its duty to defend and indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    September 1, 2011 — CJD Staff

    The Mississippi Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC v. Sea Breeze I, LLC. Sea Breeze contracted with Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC (HBSA) to design a condominium complex, which would be built by Roy Anderson Corporation. All parties agreed to arbitration.

    Subsequently, Sea Breeze alleged defects and sought arbitration against the architectural firm and started a separate arbitration proceeding against the contractor. The special arbitrator appointed by the American Arbitrators Association determined that it would be proper to consolidate the two actions “since they arose from a common question of fact or law.” HBSA filed in chancery court seeking injunctive relief and a reversal of the decision. Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson filed a motion to compel the consolidated arbitration.

    The court noted that the special arbitrator “established that the contract between Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson expressly allowed for consolidation of the two cases.” Further, the arbitrator “concluded that HBSA expressly agreed to consolidation by written consent through its 2008 letter, through which it insisted upon Roy Anderson’s involvement ‘in any mediation and/or arbitration.’”

    The court concluded that the chancery court “did not have the power to fulfill HBSA’s request.” The court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.

    Read the court’s decision…


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

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Construction defect claims are now occurrences for insurance purposes in four states, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, and South Carolina, yet there are still frustrations for commercial general liability policyholders. Business Insurance describes court decisions on whether construction defect claims are covered as “incongruous,” and this drives up coverage and litigation costs. Construction firms often find they are defending themselves on two fronts, both the construction defect claim and also whether their insurance covers it.

    Frank Armstrong, the Senior Vice President and National Director of Construction Claims for Willis North America says that the problem starts with the word “occurrence,” as various state courts have different interpretations of the word. “Certain pieces of it don’t fit well, at lest according to some courts in the country, with coverage for construction defect risks.”

    Another insurance executive, Julian Ehlich, the Senior Vice President of Claims for Aon Risk Solutions’ construction services group notes that “jurisdictions differ, so policyholders don’t know what they’re going to get.”

    Read the full story…


    Restitution Unlikely in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the money lost in the Las Vegas HOA fraud cause is probably not recoverable. Victims of the scam have asked the court for restitution, but Judge Lloyd George doubts any of the money will be found, saying “the money is not available, it would appear.”

    One Vistana board members not part of the conspiracy told reporters that the $8 million construction defect settlement never went for needed repairs. “Within six months that money was gone,” said Bruce Wallace, a retired Air Force colonel. After the construction defect account was depleted to $450,000, two board members disappeared with the funds.

    Read the full story…


    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    March 23, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii - March 23, 2011

    The New York Court of Appeals considered the impact of competing “other insurance” provisions located in both a CGL policy and a D&O policy. See Fieldston Property Owners Assoc., Inc. v. Hermitage Ins. Co., Inv., 2011 N.Y. LEXIS 254 (N.Y. Feb. 24, 2011).

    In the underlying case, Fieldston’s officers were charged with making false statements and fraudulent claims with respect to a customer's right to access its property from adjacent streets. Suit was eventually filed against Fieldston and its officers, alleging several causes of action including injurious falsehood. Damages were sought.

    Fieldston’s CGL policy was issued by Hermitage. The “other insurance” provision stated, “If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured for a loss we cover . . . our obligations are limited,” but also stated it would share with all other insurance as a primary policy.

    Read the full story...

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


    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    April 25, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Randall E. Presley was a homebuilder in Southern California for more than thirty years, acting as head of Presley Development Company from 1956 until selling the firm to Lyon Homes in 1987. The two companies merged in 1991 as the Presley Cos. Mr. Presley saw the need in the 1950s to provide people in Southern California with low- to medium-priced quality homes.

    His firm built more than 160 communities and was among the ten largest homebuilding firms in the country, expanding beyond California. Mr. Presley was 93 when he succumbed to pneumonia. He is survived by a wife, three children, seven grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren.

    Read the full story…


    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

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

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

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

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

    Read the full story…

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


    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Associated Builders and Contractors released their analysis of construction work under contract and found that there was no increase in construction backlog from the second quarter of 2011. There was still improvement, however, over 2010, as the third quarter backlog is 16.3 percent higher than that of a year ago.

    The current backlog is 8.1 months, which according to Anirban Basu, the chief economist of the ABC, “is consistent with flat construction spending.” He noted that less than 8 months indicated a decline.

    Read the full story…


    Florida: No Implied Warranties for Neighborhood Improvements

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A new law in Florida ends suits from homeowners associations from suing over damages from off-site improvements on the basis of implied warranties. Rob Samouch, writing for the Naples Daily News quotes House Biill 1013: “There is no cause of action in law or equity available to a purchaser of a home or to a homeowners’ association based upon the doctrine or theory of implied warranty of fitness and merchantability or habitability for damages to off-site improvements." The off-site improvements are defined as: "The street, road, driveway, sidewalk, drainage, utilities, or any other improvement or structure that is not located on or under the lot on which a new home is constructed.”

    Mr. Samouch notes that “there are no statutory warrant rights in homeowner associations of fitness and merchantability or habitability like there is for condominium associations.” He predicts that the Florida legislature will have to address this issue “once new homeowners start screaming and yelling to them about their shoddy infrastructure for which they have no legal remedy.”

    The bill took effect on July 1, 2012 and applies to “all cases accruing before, pending on, or filed after July 1, 2012.”

    Read the full story…


    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The New York Times reports that Austin is undergoing a building boom as a high-tech firms, including Facebook and Google, have moved into the downtown area. With them, comes a need for more apartment buildings and more retail space. Mike Kennedy, the president and chief executive of an Austin real estate firm, told the Times “the office space was here, the housing came, and retail is arriving last to the scene.” Currently, two large projects that will add about 500 apartment units is underway, including a 222-unit, 18-story building, and another that will contain 277 units. Apartment occupancy in Austin is at ninety-seven percent.

    Developers also have hotels and more office space planned. The area has about 6,000 hotel rooms with an additional 2,000 planned, but events in Austin can bring in more people than the city’s 30,000 hotel rooms can accommodate. Office space is eighty-eight percent occupied, and a lack of office space could cause firms to look elsewhere.

    Read the full story…