J. David Arkell and Benjamin M. Petre – May 8, 2013 Last month we reviewed two significant statutes governing construction defect claims in Colorado. This month we’re looking at the statutory processes applicable to construction defect claims. In Colorado, construction defect actions are governed by Colorado’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA). Under CDARA, claimants… Continue reading Colorado Law on Construction Defects, Part II: Notice of Claim Process
Category: Construction Law
North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an “Occurrence”
Tred R. Eyerly – April 24, 2013 Joining what it called the majority of jurisdictions, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that damage caused by faulty workmanship can be an “occurrence.” K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 N.D. LEXIS 61 (N.D. April 5, 2013). The insured, K&L, was a general contractor… Continue reading North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an “Occurrence”
Advisory Jury Verdicts: Why Go Before the Jury In the First Place?
Ashley Smith – May 2, 2013 Trial attorneys can comment at length about the countless hours, resources and mental exhaustion that go into preparing and trying a case before a jury. Why would anyone submit themselves, or their client, to the pains of a jury trial if, after the jury returns a verdict, the court… Continue reading Advisory Jury Verdicts: Why Go Before the Jury In the First Place?
The “Occurrence” Debate Continues: Pennsylvania and North Dakota Edition
Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab – April 30, 2013 As noted in our previous installment of CDCQ, the “occurrence” issue is one of the most hotly litigated topics in construction defect coverage cases. This last quarter was no exception. Two recent cases addressing this issue – and reaching opposite results when it comes to whether… Continue reading The “Occurrence” Debate Continues: Pennsylvania and North Dakota Edition
Idaho Supreme Court Holds There is Coverage for Attorney’s Fees even Though There are No Covered Damages
Matthew E. Hedberg – April 30, 2013 Last week, the Idaho Supreme Court held that Employers Mutual Casualty Company is required to cover attorney’s fees awarded against a builder that it defended against faulty workmanship claims, even though the court found the insurer had no duty to cover damages in the underlying suit. The underlying… Continue reading Idaho Supreme Court Holds There is Coverage for Attorney’s Fees even Though There are No Covered Damages