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

    Tennessee Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (HB 2787/SB2931 & HB 2771/SB 2201; Title 66, Chptr 36) Homeowners must serve written notice of a defect 15 days after its discovery; Contractors, upon receipt of the notice, have 10 business days to inspect the residence and inform any subcontractors it believes are reasonably responsible on the defect. Within 10 business days after notice of the claim, the subcontractor must serve a written response to contractor. Within 30 days after receipt of notice of a defect, the contractor must provide written notice of intention (repair, replace, monetarily compensate or reject) to the homeowner.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Huntingdon Tennessee

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Greater Knoxville
    Local # 4455
    221 Clark St
    Knoxville, TN 37921
    http://www.hbaknoxville.com

    Home Builders Association of Middle Tennessee
    Local # 4477
    9007 Overlook Blvd Suite 201
    Brentwood, TN 37027
    http://www.hbamt.net/

    Home Builders Association of Cumberland Co
    Local # 4410
    PO Box 507
    Crossville, TN 38557
    http://www.cumberlandcountyhomebuilders.com

    Home Builders Association of Dyer Co
    Local # 4425
    1075 Cooper Dr
    Dyersburg, TN 38024


    Home Builders Association of Rutherford Cty
    Local # 4490
    730-A Middle Tennessee Blvd Suite 5
    Murfreesboro, TN 37129
    http://www.rchba.info/

    Home Builders Association of Sevier Co
    Local # 4486
    PO Box 4653
    Sevierville, TN 37864
    http://www.seviercountyhba.com

    Home Builders Association of Upper Cumberland
    Local # 4491
    PO Box 243
    Cookeville, TN 38503
    http://www.uchba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Huntingdon Tennessee

    No Resulting Loss From Deck Collapsing Due to Rot

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Driver’s Death May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

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

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

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

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

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

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Contractual Liability Exclusion Bars Coverage

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

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

    When is a Construction Project truly “Complete”? That depends. (law note)

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

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

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

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

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

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

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

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

    Colorado “occurrence”

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Changes To Indemnification Statute Are Here! Say Hello To Defense Duties

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Defective Shingle Claims Valid Despite Bankruptcy

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

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Tucson Officials to Discuss Construction Defect Claim

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

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

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Des Moines Home Builders Building for Habitat for Humanity

    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    Plans Go High Tech

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

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

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

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

    Death of Construction Defect Lawyer Ruled a Suicide

    US Courts in Nevada Busy with Yellow Brass

    Water Damage Covered Under Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Going Green for Lower Permit Fees

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Public Relations Battle over Harmon Tower

    Arbitration Clause Not Binding on Association in Construction Defect Claim

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Town Files Construction Lawsuit over Dust

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Hovnanian Sees Second-Quarter Profit, Points to Recovery

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    After Construction Defect Case, Repairs to Austin Building

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Nebraska Man Sentenced for Insurance Fraud in Construction Projects

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

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

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation
    Corporate Profile

    HUNTINGDON TENNESSEE CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Huntingdon, Tennessee 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
    Huntingdon, Tennessee

    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…


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

    August 11, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

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

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

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

    Read the full story…

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

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    July 20, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

    The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

    Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

    After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

    The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

    Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

    The court concluded:

    Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    April 26, 2011 — April 26, 2011 Beverley BevenFlorez - Construction Defect Journal

    Decision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate

    The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.

    After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”

    Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”

    However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”

    The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”

    Read the court’s decision…


    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    March 28, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    A number of news sources have reported on the recent death of Nevada construction defect attorney, Nancy Quon. Ms. Quon was implicated in a recent scandal in which a group conspired to control homeowner associations in order to divert construction defect lawsuits to the members of the conspiracy.

    Ms. Quon was found dead in her bathtub. The details are still under investigations. She and her boyfriend were accused of a failed arson/suicide scheme in 2010. Ms. Quon survived an attempt to burn down her home. Subsequently, her boyfriend obtained some gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GBH) for her, as part of another failed suicide attempt.

    Subsequent to Ms. Quon’s death, David Amesbury was found in California dead by hanging. Mr. Amesbury took a plea deal in the case, and he had admitted his role in providing legal and construction contracts to firms in the conspiracy. He was accused of fixing HOA elections.

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…


    Local Government Waives Construction Fees to Spur Jobs

    June 19, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    Warren Township in New Jersey has waived building and electrical permit fees, up to $5,000, for businesses that create at least five new jobs. The fee reductions are available for construction in areas zones under various designations. Buildings that have received a zoning variance are not eligible. The Echoes-Sentinel notes that other towns in Somerset County, New Jersey have adopted similar ordinances.

    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…


    More Charges in Las Vegas HOA Construction Defect Scam

    May 10, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    VegasInc.com reports that U.S. District Judge James Mahan has unsealed fourteen more criminal cases in the ongoing Las Vegas HOA corruption probe. One of the fourteen is Lisa Kim, whose Platinum Community Services managed communities in which Nancy Quon and Leon Benzer were involved.

    Two attorneys were also named. Brian Jones had previously been named in civil litigation as working to rig HOA elections in favor of the straw buyers. Jeanne Winkler had done legal work for one of the communities and for the developer before her disbarment.

    Eight of the names released were of alleged straw buyers. These individuals are said to have bought fractional shares of homes so they could stand for election on the HOA boards. One of the individuals named, Arnold Meyers, had sued the Jasmine Homeowners Association, claiming that their HOA elections were tainted. Myers claimed that homeowners received postcards stating that he did not own his condo. His suit was dropped after two homeowners claimed that their names had been forged on Meyer’s affidavits.

    Read the full story…


    Recent Case Brings Clarity and Questions to Statute of Repose Application

    August 16, 2012 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    I have often chatted about the Washington Statute of Repose on this blog. The Statute of Repose prevents construction claims, for the most part, from being raised 6 years from the date of substantial completion or termination. Well, a recent Court of Appeals case dove deep into the specific determinative factors that tell us when to start the clock. It certainly raises questions about how long we really have to file suit.

    The Statute of Repose has been a frequent topic here, so I will simply direct you to my prior post for further information on how this law works. A recent post was published about a lawsuit that might raise some questions about when and how the clock begins to roll, and claim periods begin to diminish.

    Read the full story…

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


    Las Vegas Home Builder Still in Bankruptcy

    October 23, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    American West Development attempted to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 27, but their plan was turned down by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Mike Nakagawa. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Judge Nakagawa rejected the plan over a trust fund for construction defects. America West’s attorney said they were hoping to complete the process by the end of the year.

    Under approved portions of the plan, America West’s owner, Lawrence Canarelli, will retain control of the corporation, although he must contribute $10 million into the firm and an additional $1.5 million into the fund for construction defects. America West faces charges for construction defects reported in the broad range of “less than $20 million” to “as much as $80 million.”

    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…


    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    March 1, 2011 — Courtesy Colorado Construction Litigation

    In Dunn v. American Family Insurance, 09CA2173, 2010 WL 4791948 (Colo. App. Nov. 24, 2010), the Dunns reported a claim to American Family on their homeowners insurance policy after sewer and water backup caused sewage to flood their basement. American Family gave the Dunns contact information for a contractor (ICA) to remediate the flooding. However, ICA was unsuccessful and sewage began to infiltrate the Dunns’ HVAC system. Subsequently, black mold was detected in the HVAC system, the Dunns suffered health and respiratory problems, and they soon after vacated the home. The Dunns hired and fired two more contractors for unsatisfactory work throughout the winter before hiring a fourth to finish the job. Because the home remained vacant and unheated throughout the winter, the water pipes ruptured. The mold spread throughout the entire home and all of the contents needed to be replaced, which amounted to a claim of $340,000 on the policy.

    American Family agreed to pay the full $340,000. However, the Dunns brought suit claiming that American Family breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by: 1) failing to screen ICA for expertise; 2) failing to screen ICA for liability insurance coverage; 3) failing to monitor ICA’s work; 4) failing to advise them that flooding can cause further damage, including freezing pipes and mold; and, 5) failing to adequately and promptly communicate with them and remediation subcontractors in the course of investigating and handling their claim. The trial court found no duty owed by American Family beyond adjustment and timely payment of claims. Because American Family paid timely and in full, they dismissed all of the Dunns’ claims. However, the Court of Appeals reversed in part.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Chad Johnson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com


    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    July 21, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council

    It’s been over 1 year since we last visited the CertainTeed Corp. v. Seattle Roof Brokers lawsuit. After my original post, the contractor, James Garcia, appeared at Builders Counsel in a comment to defend himself. It appears that 1 year later, the court decided to side with CertainTeed and award them significant attorneys’ fees. Ready for the whole story? Its a pricey one.

    Back in July 2010, good friend Mike Atkins (Seattle Trademark Attorney) authored a post about a Seattle roofing contractor who had been sued for false advertising on his website. The lawsuit was raised by CertainTeed, a roofing material producer, whose products were the target of a Seattle contractor’s ire. Seattle Roof Brokers, owned by James Garcia, published content on its website, remarking that CertainTeed products have a history of “premature failure” and that they “will fail?.resale inspection after 15-20 years.”

    CertainTeed filed its action to obtain an injunction and damages under the Consumer Protection Act.

    Read the full story…

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


    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    October 28, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    An upstate New York man who was injured when an unsecured truss fell off the railings of a scissor lift has settled for $500,000. As the accident happened at the building site for a casino for the Seneca Nation, attorneys for the construction firm had argued that New York labor laws were inapplicable as the injury happened on Seneca Nation land. The state appeals court ruled that as none of the parties involved were Native Americans, it was not internal to the affairs of the Seneca Nation.

    Read the full story...


    Construction Defect Lawsuit Stayed by SB800

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The California Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of the lower court and has stayed, instead of dismissed, a claim of construction defects. A group of Victorville homeowners sued their homebuilder, K. Hovnanian Communities on a claim of construction defects. Hovnanian argued that under the procedures set forth in SB800, the suit should be dismissed, and that the claims should undergo arbitration. The trial agreed, dismissing the claims of 82 plaintiffs under a first motion, and then granted a second motion to dismiss, which affected a further 21 plaintiffs. The homeowners appealed.

    The Court noted that “the parties disagree about the standard of review,” with the Court determining that as the facts were not in dispute, they would use “an independent standard of review.”

    Reviewing the relevant statues, the Court concluded that the terms of the limited warranty set out the pre-litigation procedure, noting that “plaintiffs admit they did not comply with the limited warranty because they challenge its validity and enforceability.” The Court concluded that “plaintiffs’ action was premature.”

    The Court further noted that “a civil action will not be filed until after the contractual procedures have been followed.” Until these procedures have been followed, the Court said that they “decline to resolve issues about validity and enforceability.” However, as these issues could arise after the limited warranty procedures, the court stayed, rather than dismissed the claims.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    August 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Counsel

    It’s Tuesday, which means it ’s the middle of your work week. Tuesday is a great time to take an hour to look over your contracts, while the crews are pushing through their scheduled work. Today’s food for thought: How do you use your contract to reduce your litigation burden?

    Your contract should do many things. It should discuss the scope of work, scheduling of work, quality of work, coverage for liabilities and conditions and timeliness for payment. But often overlooked is how your contract can lend to dispute resolution.

    Commonly, you will see a simple provision that covers governing law, venue for disputes and the awarding of attorneys’ fees. But you can do better. Remember, a contract is enforced to the maximum extent possible in Washington state.

    Read the full story…

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


    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…


    Construction Defect Exception Does Not Lift Bar in Payment Dispute

    September 13, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The Court of appeals of Oregon has affirmed the ruling of a lower court, agreeing that ORS 701.131(1) bars John Pincetich from pursuing a payment dispute against his clients, Thomas and Frances Nolan. The Nolans hired Mr. Pincetich to build a home, during which time Mr. Pinchtich lost his license due to a lapse in liability insurance. Mr. Pincetich was reinstated after reestablishing insurance.

    After the house was concluded, a dispute over payment arose. The Nolans claimed that Mr. Pincetich was unable to bring an action against them as ORS 701.131(1)(b) specifies that the contractor must hold a license “continuously while performing the work for which compensation is sought.” As there were fourteen days in which Mr. Pincetich did not hold a license, the trial court concluded that this law did not apply.

    Mr. Pincetich claimed that in hiring him, the defendants became residential developers. Mr. Pincetich argued that developers are exempted under ORS 701.121(2)(C), but this was rejected by the trial court. This formed the basis of his appeal. The appeals court concluded that the exception he cited was motivated to “further benefit consumers by providing authority for unlicensed contractors to pursue third-party claims in construction-defect cases.” The court concluded that Mr. Pincetich’s reasoning would “allow unlicensed contractors to do the very thing that the claims bar is intended to prevent them from doing.”

    Read the court’s decision…