This Month's Construction Defect Litigation Headlines


This Month’s Construction Defect Litigation Headlines

To maximize our client’s technology choices, JDi Data continues to deliver value with our premier comprehensive and innovative cost administrative software Vendor Cost Control to facilitate immediate solutions with real-time reporting and time-saving techniques that lower business costs and provide reconciliation during complex construction defect litigation. We pride ourselves on staying up to date with the latest news in the construction defect industry. Check out a few of this month’s construction defect litigation headlines.


Governor Approves Law Limiting Implied Warranties for New Homes

Governor Rick Scott signed into law House Bill 1013 which limits the scope of implied warranties for residential construction. Specifically, HB 1013 makes clear that the implied warranty for a new home does not include defects to offsite improvements such as roads and drainage.

The limitation established in HB 1013 protects developers and home builders from implied warranty claims brought by a homeowner or homeowners’ association for problems associated with subdivision infrastructure improvements. The bill will also limit “successor developer” type liabilities that could otherwise apply to a foreclosing lender or a bulk investor taking over a development project from a defunct developer.

Click here to read more.

Can Negligent Contractors Shift Blame in South Carolina?

As many readers already know, South Carolina adopted a modified comparative fault theory as an approach to apportioning damages in which more than one party has contributed to the damages being sought by a claimant.

A plaintiff in South Carolina may recover only if his/her negligence does not exceed that of the defendant’s and the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of his or her negligence; if there is more than one defendant, plaintiff’s negligence shall be compared to combined negligence of all defendants.

Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991).

Utah Construction Defect Claims Dependent on Contracts

Utah law requires that owners’ claims against general contractors and design professionals with whom the owner has direct contracts (collectively referred to hereafter as “generals”) and their respective subcontractors and subconsultants (collectively referred to hereafter as “subs”) for construction and design defects be based upon contract rather than tort.

This does not present a problem when owners bring claims against generals with whom they are in privity but does present problems when owners want to sue subs directly, a situation that often arises particularly in design-related cases.

Thus, owners must be vigilant when contracting with their generals to ensure that generals include language in their subcontracts and consulting agreements (collectively referred to hereafter as “subcontracts”) that provide owners with third-party beneficiary rights to pursue claims against the subs. This has become even more necessary in today’s construction industry when even venerable and trusted generals are struggling to survive.

Click here to read more.

Seven Tips to Manage Construction Defect Risk

Court decisions and state regulations make managing the risk of construction defects more than just prevention. Find out what construction companies and their business partners need to know about this hard-to-handle exposure.

Click here to read more.