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

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Baker County Chapter
    Local # 3802
    3470 10th St
    Baker City, OR 97814


    Home Builders Association of Marion and Polk Counties
    Local # 3878
    385 Taylor St NE
    Salem, OR 97301
    http://www.homebuildersassociation.org

    Oregon Home Builders Association
    Local # 3800
    375 Taylor St NE
    Salem, OR 97301
    http://www.oregonhba.com

    Lincoln County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3858
    PO Box 440
    Tangent, OR 97389
    http://www.lincolncountyhba.org

    Willamette Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 3805
    PO Box 440 32054 Old Hwy 34
    Tangent, OR 97389
    http://www.wvhba.com

    Home Builders Association of Metro Portland
    Local # 3862
    15555 SW Bangy Rd Ste 301
    Lake Oswego, OR 97035
    http://www.homebuildersportland.org

    Home Builders Association of Lane County
    Local # 3824
    1065 River Rd
    Eugene, OR 97404
    http://www.hbalanecounty.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Lyons Oregon

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Discovery Ordered in Nevada Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Insurer Must Defend Claims for Diminution in Value of Damaged Property

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    New Buildings in California Soon Must Be Greener

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Loss Caused by Seepage of Water Not Covered

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

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

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Court Will Not Compel Judge to Dismiss Construction Defect Case

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Florida trigger

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

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

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

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    School District Marks End of Construction Project by Hiring Lawyers

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

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

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

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

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

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

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Defective Grout May Cause Trouble for Bridges

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

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

    Construction on the Rise in Denver

    FHA Lists Bridges and Overpasses that May Have Defective Grout

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Arizona Homeowners Must Give Notice of Construction Defect Claims

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

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

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

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

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    San Diego Construction Defect Claim Settled for $2.3 Million

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    AFL-CIO Joins in $10 Billion Infrastructure Plan

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

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

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Continuous Trigger of Coverage Adopted for Loss Under First Party Policy

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    JDi Data Introduces Mobile App for Litigation Cost Allocation

    Pier Fire Started by Welders

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

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

    The King of Construction Defect Scams

    Destruction of Construction Defect Evidence Leads to Sanctions against Plaintiff

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida
    Corporate Profile

    LYONS OREGON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Lyons, 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
    Lyons, Oregon

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Some insurers in Hawaii have made it clear that they will be covering construction defects, despite a court ruling concluding that defects are not occurrences, under Hawaii law. The case, heard by Hawaii’s Intermediate Court of Appeals found that “breach-of-contract claims based on allegations of shoddy performance are not covered under CGL policies and that tort-based claims derivative of such breach of contract claims also are not covered.”

    Writing in Business Insider, Michael Bradford notes that the case, Group Builders Inc. and Tradewind Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Admiral Insurance Co., involved improperly installed insulation at the Hilton Hawaiian Village’s Kalia Tower. Hilton was forced to close 21 floors due to extensive mold in guest rooms. Although the court did recognize this property damage, they did not feel it triggered insurance coverage, noting that if disputes over the quality of work were covered, CGL policies would become professional liability policies or performance bonds.

    One critic of the decision, Warren C. Perkins, the risk manager at Boh Bros. Construction of New Orleans, noted that under the decision, “it doesn’t matter what the policy says and there is no need to investigate the policy wording.”

    Read the full story…


    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    May 26, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.

    The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“

    On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:

    “The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”

    On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”

    Read the court’s decision


    Condominium Communities Must Complete Construction Defect Repairs, Says FHA

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Laura K. Sanchez of HindmanSanchez writes that the FHA “will not approve or recertify” any condominium community “where there are any pending or incomplete repairs within the community which are a result of a construction defect claim, regardless of whether the litigation has been resolved and regardless of whether there are funds in the bank paid by the developer to pay for the repairs.” The FHA notes that failure to complete or fund repairs could “put FHA insured loans at risk.” Communities must disclose all maintenance and repair issues to the FHA. Sanchez notes that the FHA has stated that incomplete repairs could put FHA-insured loans at risk.

    Read the full story…


    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

    Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

    The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

    Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

    In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

    The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

    The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

    The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…


    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…


    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

    September 1, 2011 — CJD Staff

    Citing public safety concerns and the cost of repair, MGM Resorts International is seeking to demolish the unfinished hotel tower. The company has a few hurdles to go through before they start laying the charges to implode the structure. Any plans would have to be approved by not only Clark County officials, but also the district court has an order blocking any activity during litigation between MGM and the general contractor on the project, Perini Building Company.

    Architectural Record reports that MGM states it would take “approximately 18 months to conduct test and come up with an approved, permitted design to fix the Harmon.” MGM feels that repairs would then take another two to three years. Perini contends that they could “provide stamped drawings detailing all necessary repairs within three months.” They attribute MGM’s desire to demolish the building as “buyer’s remorse.”

    Read the full story…


    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Pennsylvania courts have long held that there is an implied warranty of habitability for the initial purchaser of a home. Now, as some defects may not immediately show up, the court has extended that implied warranty to second and subsequent purchasers. As Marc D. Brookman, David I. Haas, and Christopher Bender of Duane Morris note, “this judicially created doctrine shifts the risk of a latent defect in the construction of a new home from the purchaser to the builder-vendor.”

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a contractual relationship is not needed for an implied warranty of habitability. The court’s concern was inequalities would result when a home was sold while other homes were protected by being within the statute of repose.

    Read the full story…


    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    June 7, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Las Vegas Sun reports that Assembly Bill 401, the construction defect bill, lost in a vote of 9 to 12. The measure extended the time for construction defect suits to be filed, awarded legal costs only to successful plaintiffs, and set a definition of construction defects. Two Democrats joined the Republicans in the Senate in defeating the bill.

    Read the full story…


    Condo Owners Worried Despite Settlement

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    KB Homes may have settled a construction defect claim with Willowbrook Condominium Association, but some of the owners are still concerned about the repair process. The Sarasota, Florida Herald Tribune reports that one homeowner’s living room “ends with a white tarp.” He told the paper, “We feel like we’re not even owners of our own home.” A neighbor wondered “what happens when people get displaced while their homes are gutted?”

    As part of the agreement, the condominium association will be selecting a contractor to repair the problems, while the cost will be paid by KB Homes. Nevertheless, at least one owner fears for their ability to resell his home, noting that even after repairs have been made, “do you think someone’s going to come in here and buy?”

    Read the full story…


    Consulting Firm Indicted and Charged with Falsifying Concrete Reports

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The New York Times reports that a company paid to inspect concrete at major public works projects in New York has been charged with falsifying results. They had been hired by the city three years ago after their predecessor was found to have falsified results.

    According to the Times, investigators found nothing legitimate in nearly three thousand reports. The owner and five employees of American Standard Testing and Consulting Laboratories have been indicted on twenty-nine counts, including charges under New York’s racketeering law. Prison terms could be up to twenty-five years.

    Prior to the city’s contract with American Standard, the city employed a firm called Testwell. Testwell was found in 2008 to have falsified its test results.

    Read the full story…


    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Although the Nevada Supreme Court adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine, it determined it did not apply to salvage coverage under an all-risk policy for a rain-damaged building. Fourth Street Place, LLC v. The Travelers Indemn. Co., 2011 Nev LEXIS 114 (Nev. Dec. 29, 2011).

    Fourth Street owned an office building which was insured by an all-risk policy issued by Travelers. Fourth Street hired Above It All Roofing to repair the roof of the office building. Above It All removed the waterproof membrane on the roof and prepared to replace the membrane the following week. Over the weekend, however, substantial rain hit. On Sunday, Above It All returned to cover the exposed portions of the roof with tarps, but wind later blew the tarps away. The building suffered significant interior damage as it continued to be exposed to the rain.

    Read the full story…

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


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

    April 25, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Writing in Oregon’s Daily Journal of Commerce, David Anderson looks at the aftermath of the case Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc. In that case, Anderson notes that “the homeowners hired a contractor to build their house, and subsequently discovered extensive water damage” “after expiration of the time to sue for breach of contract.” The homeowners claimed negligence. Oregon’s Supreme Court concluded that “homeowners only had to prove that the contractor negligently caused reasonably foreseeable harm to the homeowner’s property.”

    Anderson views this decision as leading to two risks for contractors. “First, contractors can be held liable in tort for breaching building code standards; second, they can be held liable for violating the often-difficult-to-define ‘reasonable care’ standard.” But here, “contract can be king.” The Oregon Supreme Court noted that the contractor “could have avoided exposure to the general ‘reasonable care’ standard by more carefully defining its obligations in the original construction contract.”

    He notes that contractors who fail to define their obligations or use generic definitions “may be exposing themselves to a more vague scope of liability.”

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    March 28, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Construction Law Hawaii

    Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.

    After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and caused it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.

    The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

    Read the full story…

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


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

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    In April 2012, Governor Rick Scott signed into law House Bill 1013, despite lobbying from homeowner and condominium associations among others. The law was in response to a case in which the court had found that implied warranties covered external subdivision improvements. Prior to the court decision, these were not thought to be covered.

    According to an article in the Martindale-Hubble Legal Library, under the new law, road and drainage improvements will not be included implied warranty of a new home. The law took effect on July 1.

    Read the full story…


    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    July 19, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Lockton Companies, LLC, the largest privately held independent insurance broker, has announced that it is expanding its construction and design team with the hiring of Karen Erger and Tom Miller.

    Ms. Erger will provide professional liability practice management, loss prevention, contract and complex claims management consulting services to Lockton's architectural, engineering and construction clients in her role as Vice President, Director of Practice Management. Her background includes construction litigation at a leading construction law firm, professional liability claims defense and claims consulting for major professional liability underwriters.

    Miller joins Lockton as a Senior Vice President within the Design and Construction Unit. His role will be dedicated to serving the needs of engineering, architecture and construction firms performing services around the globe. He has spent more than 15 years concentrating on professional liability for design professionals and contractors in multiple roles. He previously managed the professional liability underwriting of one of the largest construction insurers and has developed numerous manuscript insurance products as well as focused on strategic planning to enhance business unit opportunities.

    Read the full story…


    New Construction Laws, New Forms in California

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    New construction laws came into effect in California on July 1. Writing for the Martindale-Hubble Legal Library, Glenn Mau, J. Michael McGuire, and John Tonsing, all of Archer Norris, discuss these changes. They note that the most important part of the changes to California construction law is that “all mechanics liens, stop notices and bond claims recorded after July 1, 2012 must use the new standardized forms and follow the new definitions, notice prerequisites and statutory release form language.”

    Read the full story…


    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    April 25, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Cousel

    Contractual fairness ? it is part of my mantra. If you read the blog, you probably know that I preach brevity, balance and clarity in contracting. The State of Washington did well to finally eliminate something that has angered me for quite some time ? unfair indemnification.

    One of my favorite construction contract revisions is mutual indemnification. Many “up the chain” contractors and owners are going to stick you with a unilateral indemnification clause that protects them for just about everything, including their own fumbling of a project. Adding mutual indemnification provides some balance, and keeps parties reliant upon each other for success on the job site.

    Read the full story…

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