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

    Indiana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: According to SB45160, §IC 32-27-3-1&2 a claimant must provide written notice 60 days before filing an action. Within 21 days after service of the notice, the construction professional must serve a written response. Claimant must file list of known construction defects, description, and the construction professional responsible for each alleged defect (to the extent known).


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Wabash County Indiana

    License required for plumbing. All other licensing is done at the local county level.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Howard County Inc
    Local # 1532
    PO Box 1187
    Kokomo, IN 46903
    http://www.hbahowardco.com

    Builders Association of Greater Lafayette
    Local # 1548
    PO Box 5795
    Lafayette, IN 47903
    http://www.bagl.info

    Home Builders Association of Fort Wayne
    Local # 1528
    305 W Main St
    Fort Wayne, IN 46802
    http://www.hbafortwayne.com

    East Central Indiana Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1556
    PO Box 1072
    Muncie, IN 47308


    Jasper County Home Builders Association
    Local # 1550
    511 4th Ave. NW
    Demotte, IN 46310
    http://www.jaspercountyhba.com

    Builders Association of Kosciusko-Fulton Counties
    Local # 1541
    313 S Buffalo St Suite B
    Warsaw, IN 46580
    http://www.bakfc.com

    Marshall Co Chapter
    Local # 1554
    PO Box 464
    Plymouth, IN 46563



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Wabash County Indiana

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

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    OSHA Extends Delay of Residential Construction Fall Protection Requirements

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

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    Judge Kobayashi Determines No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

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

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Federal District Court Predicts Florida Will Adopt Injury In Fact Trigger

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

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

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

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

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

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Will They Blow It Up?

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

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

    Judge Concludes Drywall Manufacturer Sold in Florida

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

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

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

    Homebuilding on the Rise in Nation’s Capitol

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

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

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

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Exclusion Bars Coverage for Mold, Fungus

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Plans Go High Tech

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

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

    Statute of Repose Dependant on When Subcontractors Finished

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    There Is No Non-Delegable Duty on the Part of Residential Builders in Colorado

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    Preparing for Trial on a Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code section 895, et seq.

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law
    Corporate Profile

    WABASH COUNTY INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Wabash County, Indiana Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Wabash County's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.









    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Wabash County, Indiana

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Broad Sustainable Building has leapfrogged in China’s construction boom by building a thirty-story hotel in just fifteen days in the city of Changsha. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, most of the building was prefabricated, but most prefabricated buildings require a longer time for assembly. Broad claimed that it cut no corners on safety. However, Zhang Li, a Beijing architect, told the Times that “incredible speed also means incredible risk.”

    At the completion date, the interior was still partially finished. Some rooms were furnished, while others weren’t quite so ready. The hotel will be used to house clients who are visiting Broad and some of its employees.

    Broad called their process “the most profound innovation in human history” and predicted that soon a third of new buildings worldwide would be constructed this way. The company anticipates using the same process to build taller buildings, with hopes of eventually constructing a 150-story building.

    China is currently undergoing a building boom which Zhang attributed to a desire to catch up to the developed world. As a result of this boom, he noted that building inspections are often skipped in China to speed up building.

    Read the full story…


    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    September 1, 2011 — CDJ Staff

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

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

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

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

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

    Read the court’s decision…


    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    June 29, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    With a decrease in funding, as compared to the House bill, the Military Construction and Veteran’s Affairs subcommittee of the Senate moved on a $72 billion construction bill. The House version had approved an additional half billion dollars in funding. Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Carolina, said that he expected easy reconciliation with the House version. The Senate bill will move to the full Senate Appropriations Committee on June 30.

    The bill, S 1255, includes funding for construction and remodeling of military housing, as well as construction and remodeling of base facilities.

    Read the full story…

    Read S1255


    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    October 28, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

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

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

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

    Read the full story...

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


    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Reporting on the site VegasInc.com, Liz Benton notes that “nobody wants to take the fall for what happened at Harmon.” Work on the Harmon hotel building in Las Vegas’s CityCenter stopped in 2008 after 26 of the planned 49 stories were completed. Lorence Slutzky, a construction law professor at John Marshall Law School and a partner with the Chicago firm Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor told Benton that while inspectors and others are complicit, “the real responsibility rests with Perini, which has an obligation to comply with the plan specifications.” Perini’s claim is that they were given faulty design drawings. MGM disputes this.

    Perini has offered to repair the building defects, however MGM has released a statement that they have “zero confidence or trust that Perini can and will properly fix a building it has so badly constructed thus far.” One MGM spokesperson likened these requests from Perini to “the director of ‘Ishar’ demanding a sequel.” “Ishtar,’ cost Columbia Pictures $55 million dollars and earned only $4.2 million in its initial run. Perini claims that MGM halted work because of the economy.

    Read the full story…


    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    American Openings, a Tuscon-based window manufacturer, has responded to the loss of its sales of windows for new home construction by moving into new markets. The Arizona Daily Star reports that American Openings used to see providing windows for new homes as half their business. Now, Tom Regina, the founder and president says “single family is just dead.”

    Their products are insulated windows, designed to comply with Energy Star standards. Without new homes being built, now the company is focusing on homeowners and building owners looking for more energy efficient windows. As the windows have two or three panes and special coatings, homeowners using them are eligible for tax credits.

    One of their newer products combines their energy-saving coatings with “break resistant” glass. The article notes that the windows repel “all but the most determined burglars.” However, the company is still awaiting special equipment to cut the glass.

    Read the full story...


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

    August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

    In Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Shay Construction, Inc., No. 10-cv-02126 (D. Col. July 28. 2011), general contractor Milender White subcontracted with insured Shay for framing work.   Shay in turn subcontracted some of its work to others.  When Shay?s subcontractors filed suit against Shay and Milender White seeking payment for their work, Milender White cross-claimed against Shay for breach of contract alleging that,Milender White notified Shay during construction that some of Shay?s work was defective and that when Shay repaired its defective work, it damaged work performed by others.  Shay’s CGL insurer Continental Western filed suit against Milender White and Shay seeking a judicial declaration of no coverage.  The federal district trial court granted Continental Western?s motion for summary judgment.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    May 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

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

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

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

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

    Read the full story…

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


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

    November 18, 2011 — Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    On November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.

    The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).

    The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com


    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    March 4, 2011 — April 4, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    After five years of legal battles, the condo owners of the El Cortez Hotel building in downtown San Diego settled for $6.4 million, as reported by The San Diego Union-Tribune on March 28, 2011. The Homeowners Association will net just over $3 million from the settlement.

    The litigation may have had an adverse effect on the value of the condos within the El Cortez Hotel building. According to an article by Kelly Bennett of Voice of San Diego, “Many condos in the building originally sold for more than $600,000. Currently, the three units on the market are asking for just more than $200,000, the U-T said.”

    Andrew Berman, the owners’ attorney, told The San Diego Union-Tribune that the five years of litigation included six lawsuits, 200 depositions, and multiple construction tests.

    Read the full story... (San Diego Union Tribune)

    Read the full story... (Voice of San Diego)


    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    February 10, 2012 — CJD Staff

    Built on a program for safer school buildings, schools in Neenan County, Colorado have been shown to have mild-to-moderate structural problems, rendering some of them unsafe. The Denver Post reports that a third-party review of schools built by the Neenan Company has shown structural issues in all fifteen school buildings.

    One school, Meeker Elementary, has been closed as it could collapse under high winds or during an earthquake. Sargent Junior-Senior High School is in use, but there are plans to evacuate the buildings if winds exceed 25 mile per hour. Two schools have roofs that are unable to bear expected loads of snow during the winter.

    The Neenan Company says that the school buildings are not up to their standards and is working with the school districts to repair the buildings. Repairs are expected to be complete by August.

    Read the full story…


    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    March 1, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    David Thamann, writing in Property Casualty 360, argues that current actions by legislatures on insurance coverage amount to “legislative interference or overreach.” He notes that under current Colorado law, “a court shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage — including damage to the work itself or other work — is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured.” He argues that here legislators are stepping into the role of the courts. “Insureds and insurers are not always going to be pleased with a court ruling, but that is the system we have.”

    Read the full story…


    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…


    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    November 18, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Vertex Pharmaceuticals is poised to become the holder of Boston’s biggest commercial lease, paying $72.5 million for 1.1 million square feet on Boston’s waterfront. Vertex’s new buildings are still under construction, but the plans have spurred other development in the Fan Pier area, according to the New York Times. The Times quotes Mary A. Burke, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that the Vertex project gives “a big push” to the “momentum for economic growth.”

    The Fallon Company is building Vertex’s new laboratory and office space. They are separately planning to build a high-rise with 150 luxury condominium units. According to Joseph Fallon, the chief executive and president of the Fallon Company, there is already a waiting list of 50 buyers for the condominiums.

    Across the street from the Vertex site, a group including Morgan Stanley and Boston Global Investors is planning a 23-block mixed use project that would include 1.2 million square feet of retail space. Additionally, the New England Development and the Hanover Group is building a 356-unit apartment building at the adjacent Pier 4.

    Read the full story…


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

    November 7, 2012 — David McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation

    The following is an update on our December 20, 2010 article regarding United States Fire Insurance Company v. Pinkard Construction Company, Civil Action No. 09-CV-01854-MSK-MJW, and its underlying dispute, Legacy Apartments v. Pinkard Construction Company, Case No. 2003 CV 703, Boulder County Dist. Ct. That article can be found here.

    The present action, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-02936-MSK-CBS, encompasses the coverage battle that ensued between Pinkard’s insurers, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) and United States Fire Insurance Company (“USFI”), following the settlement of Legacy’s construction defect claims against Pinkard. A short history of the underlying facts is as follows:

    In 1995, Pinkard constructed the Legacy Apartments housing complex in Longmont, Colorado. Following construction, Legacy notified Pinkard of water leaks associated with various elements of construction. Legacy ultimately filed suit against Pinkard in 2003, and would go on to clarify and amend its defect claims in 2004, 2006, and again in 2008. Following Pinkard’s notification of Legacy’s claims, USFI provided a defense to Pinkard, but Travelers refused to do so, on the purported basis that Legacy’s allegations did not implicate property damage under the terms of Travelers’ policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com


    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    July 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Simms v. Nance Construction. After a fire damaged his home, Jerry Simms discovered some construction defects in the work of the builder, Nance Construction. Nance Construction completed the home in 2000 and it was damaged by fire in 2001. In the course of Simms’ suit against his neighbor, “defense experts opined both that Dusty Creek had negligently repaired the damage to Simms’ residence and that many defects found in the houses were the result of defects in the original construction.” Nance offered to make roof repairs. Simms responded with a list of “numerous construction defects,” stating this was “not a comprehensive and final list of items.” Nance offered to repair some while disputing others. Simms entered a lawsuit against Nance and other parties.

    Nance first sought a summary judgment, “asserting that Simms had failed to adequately disclose the repairs for which he sought to hold Nance responsible.” The court denied this. It also would not allow Nance to introduce evidence that Simms had been denied a license by the Arizona Department of Gaming over “questionable business practices, illegal activities, and financial transactions with a person purportedly involved in organized crime.”

    During the suit, Simms contracted with Advanced Repair Technologies “for repairs that included a complete remodel of the roof and the exterior stucco system.” Nance later claimed that the cost of ART’s repair was unreasonable, claiming that it should have cost about $600,000 instead of the $1.5 million for which Simms contracted. The jury found against Nance, with a judgment of $870,200 of which half was due to the roofing subcontractor.

    After the verdict, Nash moved for a new trial, stating that the jury should have heard expert testimony on whether the contract price was reasonable. Nance also “argued that the trial court had erred in refusing to allow Nance to impeach Simms’ credibility with his purported prior acts of dishonesty.” These motions were denied and Nance appealed.

    The appeals court upheld the trial court on all counts. The court found that, despite the contention made by Nance, the jury had sufficient information to determine if the cost of the repairs were reasonable. The court also found that Simms had given Nance an opportunity to propose repairs. The law, however, “does not require the Plaintiff to accept an offer for repairs,” adding that “the record makes clear that the parties were far apart in their belief of the nature of repairs necessary.” Nor did the court find that Nance should have been allowed to introduce evidence to impeach Simms’ credibility.

    Although judgment of the lower court was affirmed, the court took the discretion to decline to award attorneys’ fees to Simms, although he was awarded costs.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Texas “your work” exclusion

    January 6, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

    In American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C., No. 10-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), claimant Ergon hired insured Cat Tech to perform service on a reactor at Ergon’s refinery. During a start-up of the reactor after Cat Tech had completed its work, the reactor suffered damage. Cat Tech performed additional service and repairs. However, again upon start-up of the reactor, it suffered additional damage. Ergon hired another contractor to repair the reactor. Ergon initiated arbitration proceedings against Cat Tech. Cat Tech’s CGL insurer American Home defended Cat Tech against the Ergon arbitration under a reservation of rights.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com


    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    August 16, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Washington Township in Ohio has filed a lawsuit against Underground Utilities for their handling of construction fill on a road project. The City of Mansfield had hired the firm to improve road safety. The lawsuit is over the company’s actions in processing soil for fill, which they are doing on three vacant lots that are zoned for residential use. Washington Township Trustee Jack Butler told the Mansfield Journal that “what brought the lawsuit to a head was the fact that the contractor did not control the dust.” Subsequent receiving notices of zoning violations, the company began to move its operation to another site.

    Read the full story…