BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Cooper City Florida condominiums building expert Cooper City Florida casino resort building expert Cooper City Florida mid-rise construction building expert Cooper City Florida townhome construction building expert Cooper City Florida custom home building expert Cooper City Florida condominium building expert Cooper City Florida housing building expert Cooper City Florida multi family housing building expert Cooper City Florida industrial building building expert Cooper City Florida parking structure building expert Cooper City Florida office building building expert Cooper City Florida high-rise construction building expert Cooper City Florida Medical building building expert Cooper City Florida landscaping construction building expert Cooper City Florida custom homes building expert Cooper City Florida production housing building expert Cooper City Florida hospital construction building expert Cooper City Florida institutional building building expert Cooper City Florida tract home building expert Cooper City Florida retail construction building expert Cooper City Florida Subterranean parking building expert Cooper City Florida
    Cooper City Florida engineering expert witnessCooper City Florida OSHA expert witness constructionCooper City Florida civil engineer expert witnessCooper City Florida construction project management expert witnessCooper City Florida slope failure expert witnessCooper City Florida roofing and waterproofing expert witnessCooper City Florida delay claim expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Cooper City, Florida

    Florida Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: In Title XXXIII Chapter 558, the Florida Legislature establishes a requirement that homeowners who allege construction defects must first notify the construction professional responsible for the defect and allow them an opportunity to repair the defect before the homeowner canbring suit against the construction professional. The statute, which allows homeowners and associations to file claims against certain types of contractors and others, defines the type of defects that fall under the authority of the legislation and the types of housing covered in thelegislation. Florida sets strict procedures that homeowners must follow in notifying construction professionals of alleged defects. The law also establishes strict timeframes for builders to respond to homeowner claims. Once a builder has inspected the unit, the law allows the builder to offer to repair or settle by paying the owner a sum to cover the cost of repairing the defect. The homeowner has the option of accepting the offer or rejecting the offer and filing suit. Under the statute the courts must abate any homeowner legal action until the homeowner has undertaken the claims process. The law also requires contractors, subcontractors and other covered under the law to notify homeowners of the right to cure process.


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Cooper City Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tri-County Home Builders
    Local # 1073
    PO Box 420
    Marianna, FL 32447

    Cooper City Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Tallahassee Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1064
    1835 Fiddler Court
    Tallahassee, FL 32308

    Cooper City Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of Okaloosa-Walton Cos
    Local # 1056
    1980 Lewis Turner Blvd
    Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547

    Cooper City Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of West Florida
    Local # 1048
    4400 Bayou Blvd Suite 45
    Pensacola, FL 32503

    Cooper City Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Florida Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 1000
    PO Box 1259
    Tallahassee, FL 32302

    Cooper City Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055

    Cooper City Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Northeast Florida Builders Association
    Local # 1024
    103 Century 21 Dr Ste 100
    Jacksonville, FL 32216

    Cooper City Florida Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Cooper City Florida


    In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

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

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Sinking S.F. Tower Prompts More Lawsuits

    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Owner’s Obligation Giving Notice to Cure to Contractor and Analyzing Repair Protocol

    APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Expert's Opinions On Causation Leads Way To Summary Judgment For Insurer

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

    Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels
    Corporate Profile

    COOPER CITY FLORIDA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Cooper City, Florida Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Cooper City'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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Cooper City, Florida

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    December 31, 2014 —
    Ewing received quite a bit of attention around the blogosphere, and Tred R. Eyerly of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert wrote a nicely succinct case summary on his blog, Insurance Law Hawaii: “In a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor who agrees to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner does not "assume liability" for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

    November 24, 2019 —
    In Rankin v. South Street Downtown Holdings, Inc., 2019 N.H. LEXIS 165, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire considered, pursuant to a question transferred by the trial court, whether RSA 508:4-b, the statute of repose for improvements to real property, applies to indemnity and contribution claims. The court concluded that based upon the plain reading of the statute, it applies to indemnity and contribution claims. As noted by the court, a holding to the contrary would violate the intent of a statute of repose, which is to establish a time limit for when a party is exposed to liability. In Rankin, after falling and injuring himself while leaving a building, John Rankin and his wife brought an action against the property owner, South Street Downtown Holding, Inc. (South Street) in 2017. South Street subsequently filed a third-party complaint against multiple parties including an architectural company, Wagner Hodgson, Inc. (Wagner), who was involved in a renovation project at the property. The project was substantially complete in 2009. Wagner responded by moving to dismiss the action, arguing that South Street’s indemnification and contribution claims were barred by the applicable statute of repose. RSA 508:4-b specifically states,
    Except as otherwise provided in this section, all actions to recover damages for injury to property, injury to the person, wrongful death or economic loss arising out of any deficiency in the creation of an improvement to real property, including without limitation the design, labor, materials, engineering, planning, surveying, construction, observation, supervision or inspection of that improvement, shall be brought within 8 years from the date of substantial completion of the improvement, and not thereafter. (Emphasis added).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    June 15, 2020 —
    White and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, four lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in banking and finance and another for his work in commercial litigation. White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings and is described as "reasoned and respectful." Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims as well as its experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, characterized for "work[ing] well together and provid[ing] exceptional representation." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    January 21, 2019 —
    Contractual waivers of consequential damages are important, whether they are mutual or one-sided. I believe in specificity in that the types of consequential damages that are waived should be detailed in the waiver of consequential damages provision. Standard form construction agreements provide a good template of the types of consequential damages that the parties are agreeing to waive. But, what if there is no specificity in the waiver of consequential damages provision? What if the provision just states that the parties mutually agree to waive consequential damages or that one party waives consequential-type damages against the other party? Let me tell you what would happen. The plaintiff will argue that the damages it seeks are general damages and are NOT waived by the waiver of consequential damages provision. The defendant, on the other hand, will argue that the damages are consequential in nature and, therefore, contractually waived. FOR THIS REASON, PARTIES NEED TO APPRECIATE WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING WAIVED OR LIMITED, AND POTENTIALLY THOSE DAMAGES NOT BEING WAIVED OR LIMITED, WHEN AGREEING TO A WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES PROVISION! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    July 20, 2020 —
    Congratulations to attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty who were selected to the Super Lawyers 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    June 15, 2017 —
    Indemnity provisions are one of the most fought over provisions in design and construction contracts. But while parties generally understand the intent behind indemnity provisions — that one party (the “indemnitor”) agrees to indemnify (and often defend as well) another party (the “indemnitee”) from and against claims that may arise on a project — few understand how they are actually applied. In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Oltmans Construction Company v. Bayside Interiors, Inc. (March 30, 2017), Case No. A147313, the California Court of Appeals for the First District examined an indemnity provision and its “except to the extent of” provision whereby a subcontractor agreed to indemnify (and defend) a general contractor from claims arising on a project “except to the extent of” the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct and whether such language either: (1) bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively negligent; or (2) simply bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively and solely negligent, thereby, requiring a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor where the negligence of another party may have also contributed to the injury or damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    January 04, 2021 —
    Damage to a building caused by the break of a water pipe was not a collapse under the policy. Naabani Twin Stars v. Travelers Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196443 (D. N. M. Oct. 22, 2020). An underground water line ruptured on plaintiffs property This caused a collapse under the adjacent parking lot, which in turn caused land beneath the building go change positions and damage the building. A geotechnical consultant concluded that a material change in the site conditions occurred as a direct result of the rupture of the water pipe in the parking lot, and that those changes directly affected the settlement of the building. Travelers denied coverage for the damage. Travelers concluded that the building settlement was the result of subsurface movement, which invoked the earth movement exclusion. Travelers inspection concluded that the building was not in a state of collapse. The policy defined collapse as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or structure, or any part of a building or structure, with the result that the building, or part of the building, cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    November 18, 2011 —

    There has been a fair share of publicity about the SB-800 amendments to the Civil Code (Civil Code section 896, et seq.) that codified construction defect litigation in 2002. Most of the publicity is geared toward the pre-litigation standards allowing a builder the right to repair before litigation is commenced by a homeowner. Less focus and attention has been given to the fact that violation of the SB-800 performance standards is being used by plaintiff’s counsel as an additional tool in the plaintiff’s pleading tool box against builders. Closer scrutiny to SB-800 reveals that those provisions should in fact act as a limitation to the pleading tools available to plaintiffs and an additional tool for builders in the defense of cases governed by SB-800.

    The typical construction defect complaint contains the boiler plate versions of numerous causes of action. These causes of action include Strict Liability, Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Contract, Breach of Contract – Third-Party Beneficiary, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties, among others. The wide array of causes of action leave a defendant “pinned to the wall” because they require a complex defense on a multitude of contract and tort related causes of action. Furthermore, the statutes of limitations as to these claims widely differ depending upon if the particular defect is considered latent or patent. The truth of the matter remains, no matter what the circumstances, if a construction defect matter ultimately goes to trial, it is inevitable that plaintiffs will obtain a judgment on at least one of these causes of action.

    On its own, the Strict Liability cause of action can be a thorn in a defendant’s side. A builder is obviously placing a product into the stream of commerce and strict liability is a tough standard to defend against, particularly when it concerns intricate homes comprised of multiple components that originally sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. A Negligence cause of action can also be difficult to defend because the duty of care for a builder is what a “reasonable” builder would have done under the circumstances. An interpretation of this duty of care can easily sway a jury that will almost always consist of sympathetic homeowners. A Negligence Per Se cause of action can also leave a defendant vulnerable to accusations that a builder violated the Uniform Building Code or a multitude of other obscure municipal construction-related code provisions during the construction of the home. Lastly, the Breach of Contract cause of action leaves a builder relying on dense and intricate purchase and sale agreements with dozens of addenda which leave the skeptical jurors turned off by what they view as one-side, boilerplate provisions. Ultimately, when a matter is about to go to trial, the complexity of these complaints can benefit a plaintiff and increase a plaintiff’s bargaining power against a defendant who is attempting to avoid a potentially large judgment.

    Enter the SB-800 statutes. The SB-800 statutes apply to all homes sold after January 1, 2003. Civil Code section 938 specifically states that “[t]his title applies only to new residential units where the purchase agreements with the buyer was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003.” (Civil Code §, 938.) As time progresses, more residential construction defect cases will exclusively fall under the purview of SB-800. Slowly but surely more SB-800 governed litigation is being filed, and its exclusive application is looming on the horizon.

    On its surface, this “right to repair” regime has left builders with a lot to be desired despite the fact that it is supposed to allow the builder the opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their product before litigation can be filed by potential plaintiffs. However, the application of the time line for repair has shown to be impractical for anything but the most minor problems involving only small numbers of residential units. Moreover, the fact that the fruits of the builder’s investigation into the claimed defects in the pre-litigation context can freely be used as evidence against it in litigation makes builders proceed with trepidation in responding with a repair. For these reasons, more SB-800 litigation can be expected to result due to the shortcomings of the pre-litigation procedures, and savvy defense counsel should anticipate the issues to be dealt with in presenting the defense of such cases at trial.

    This fact should not necessarily be met with fear or disdain. Within the SB-800 statutes, the legislature made it clear that they were creating a new cause of action for construction defect claims, but it further made it clear that this cause of action is a plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The legislature giveth, but at the same time, the legislature taketh away. Throughout numerous provisions within the SB-800 statutes, the Civil Code states that claims for construction defects as to residential construction are exclusively governed by the Civil Code, and that the Civil Code governs any and all litigation arising under breaches of these provisions. Civil Code section 896 specifically states:

    In any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … the claimant’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of, the following standards, except as specifically set forth in this title. (Civil Code §, 896.)

    Civil Code section 896 then provides approximately fifty-plus standards by which a construction defect claim is assessed under that provision. Civil Code section 896 covers everything from plumbing to windows, and from foundations to decks, and in several instances expressly dictates statutes of limitations as to specific areas of construction that severely truncate the 10-year latent damage limitations period. As for any construction deficiencies that are not enumerated within Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 explicitly defines the intent of the standards and provides a method to assess deficiencies that are not addressed in Civil Code section 896. Civil Code section 897 states:

    Intent of Standards

    The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure. To the extent that a function or component of a structure is not addressed by these standards, it shall be actionable if it causes damage. (Civil Code §, 897.)

    Therefore, Civil Code section 897 acts as a catch-all by which defects that are not covered within Civil Code section 896 can be evaluated on a damage standard mirroring the Aas case (damages must be present and actual). The result of sections 896 and 897 being read in combination is a comprehensive, all-inclusive set of performance standards by which any defect raised by Plaintiffs can be evaluated and resolved under a single SB-800 based cause of action.

    Civil Code section 943 makes clear that a cause of action for violation of SB-800 performance standards is a plaintiff’s sole remedy for a residential construction defect action. Specifically, Civil Code section 943 states:

    Except as provided in this title, no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under 944 is allowed. In addition to the rights under this title, this title does not apply to any action by a claimant to enforce a contract or express contractual provision, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. (Civil Code §, 943.)

    Civil Code section 944 provides the method for computing damages within a construction defect action, as follows:

    If a claim for damages is made under this title, the homeowner is only entitled to damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set forth in this title, [and] the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts… . (Civil Code §, 944.)

    A cursory review of these statutes yields the conclusion that the legislature was attempting to create an exclusive cause of action that trumps all other causes of action where SB-800 applies. The remedy available to plaintiffs is limited to that allowed by the Civil Code. As noted above, “[n]o other cause of action for a claim covered by this title…is allowed.” (Civil Code §, 943.) Therefore, Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943, and 944 specifically prohibit the contract-based and tort-based causes of action typically pled by plaintiffs.

    Plaintiff’s counsel has seized upon the language of section 943 to advance the argument that SB-800 still allows a plaintiff to advance typical contract and tort based causes of action. On the surface, this argument may seem compelling, but a minimum of scrutiny of the express language of section 943 dispels this notion. Section 943 says that it provides rights “[i]n addition” to those under the SB-800 Civil Code provisions. Clearly, the language in section 943 is intended to expressly underscore the fact that a plaintiff is not precluded from seeking relief in addition to that allowed under SB-800 for damages not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards or for damages in addition to those recoverable under Section 944. This language does not provide an unfettered license to bring a Strict Liability, Negligence or other cause of action against a builder where SB-800 applies.

    In fact, this language only keeps the door open for plaintiffs to pursue such causes of action not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards should there be such supporting allegations. For example, if a plaintiff alleges that a builder breached an “express contractual provision” related to the timing of the completion of the home and close of escrow, and the contract specifies damages in this regard, a plaintiff may have a viable separate cause of action for Breach of Contract for recovery of those damages precisely because that is not an issue expressly dealt with in SB-800 in the performance standards under sections 896 and 897, or in the damage recovery terms under 944. As it stands, the vast majority of complaints are seeking redress for violation of the same primary right; that is, defects specifically outlined in Section 896 and 897 or which result in damages as stated in Section 944.

    So, how does a builder defend against a complaint that contains multiple causes of action regarding construction defects for a home sold after January 1, 2003? There are numerous ways to approach this. First and foremost, these superfluous and improper causes of action can be attacked by demurrer seeking dismissal of all causes of action other than the cause of action alleging violation of SB-800. If the the time period within which to file a demurrer has passed already, a motion for judgment on the pleadings can be utilized to attack the improper causes of action in the same way as a demurrer can be used for this purpose.

    The limitation to a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings is that the judge is restricted to viewing only the four corners of the pleading when making a ruling. It is typical for plaintiffs’ counsel to cleverly (or one might even say, disingenuously) leave the complaint purposely vague to avoid a successful defense attack on the pleadings by not including the original date the residence was sold. In that instance, a motion for summary adjudication can be used to attack a plaintiff’s complaint. By simply providing evidence that the homes were originally sold after January 1, 2003, the improper causes of action should be subject to dismissal by summary adjudication. If the plaintiff is a subsequent purchaser, the builder still has recourse to enforce the pleading limitations under SB-800. Civil Code section 945 states that “[t]he provisions, standards, rights, and obligations set forth in this title are binding upon all original purchasers and their successors-in-interest.” (Civil Code §, 945.)

    Attacking a plaintiff’s complaint to eliminate multiple causes of action can have numerous benefits. The practical result is that a plaintiff will only have one viable cause of action. The advantage is that the SB-800 performance standards include the defined performance standards and shortened statutes of limitations periods with regard to specific issues. Furthermore, as to defects which are not specifically provided for in Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 requires a proof of actual damages. Therefore, a plaintiff must provide evidence of current damages and not simply conditions that may potentially cause damage in the future.

    The Appellate Courts have yet to directly address and interpret these SB-800 provisions. The time for that is undoubtedly drawing near. For now, however, plaintiffs will have to find ways to accurately plead construction defect claims within the confines of one cause of action for breach of the performance standards enumerated within the Civil Code.

    Printed courtesy of Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP. Mr. Patel can be contacted at spatel@lorberlaw.com and Mr. Verbick at tverbick@lorberlaw.com.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of