California has earned their reputation for outlandish settlements on nonsense litigation very honestly. They are the darling child of property casualty claims against insurance companies who become litigious when a law firm encourages homeowners to get together and sue under four policy terms for each suit brought. These became a cash-cow for attorneys in California who had big brass ones and called in a construction defect expert to make a case.
The primary experts utilized in this had specialized knowledge about framing, carpet, wood, and concrete. Specific firms utilized the concrete experts most often because the claims made resulted in some astronomical settlements for the insureds as well as their legal representatives. Neither the judges nor the juries were able to refute statements made as to the physical make-up of the concrete, which they claimed would crumble to dust within a decade.
These were lawsuits of the Nineties which followed a series of settlements made following the Northridge quake. There were homeowners pulling out the blue-prints of their houses, and successfully showing that the framing had been put together in a shoddy fashion. The courts agreed that it constituted fraud since there was an expectation that those who built the structures had followed these schematics.
While they constructed these homes and other structures basically like the blue-print would show, roughly two-thirds of the homes were utilizing one-fourth of the nails and screws which should have been holding the framework together. These General Contractors were certainly guilty of Bad Faith, as a blue-print is part of their contract with the homeowner. So consistently were these corners cut that it could not be interpreted as negligence, but was shown to be an intentional means of cutting costs.
The Northridge Earthquake initiated this cycle of class-action lawsuits brought by homeowners in the state. At this point, firms moved in like carpetbaggers, going door-to-door in many communities in order to organize class-action suits. If they could not prove that shoddy work was performed on the structure through framing schematics, then they went to the chemistry involved in laying the groundwork for structures in the area.
The fraying of carpet which was five or more years old did not result in the types of settlements that those in the legal field were looking for. However, once the concrete experts were brought in with their video evidence of slab failure, juries were swayed. They were able to convince the courts that these homeowners would be stuck with homes that were no longer livable due to conditions of structural integrity.
In hindsight we see that these concrete slabs, driveways, sidewalks, and curbs did not crumble and fail. While some of the insurance loopholes have been closed, it does not change the fact that the settlements were not used by the homeowners to repair or replace any concrete. These monies were used the way most free and easy money gets used, and we can only hope that some children were put through college at least.
Open peril contracts of insurance were the product primarily written by the Underwriters, and such contracts require that claims not covered be specified. Construction defects were consistently named as a coverage exclusion, as land-movement makes it impossible to discern what was done by the subcontractor versus what is normal wear and tear. However, the attorneys discovered a loophole, and filed their lawsuits under the completed operations portion of the policy.
The primary experts utilized in this had specialized knowledge about framing, carpet, wood, and concrete. Specific firms utilized the concrete experts most often because the claims made resulted in some astronomical settlements for the insureds as well as their legal representatives. Neither the judges nor the juries were able to refute statements made as to the physical make-up of the concrete, which they claimed would crumble to dust within a decade.
These were lawsuits of the Nineties which followed a series of settlements made following the Northridge quake. There were homeowners pulling out the blue-prints of their houses, and successfully showing that the framing had been put together in a shoddy fashion. The courts agreed that it constituted fraud since there was an expectation that those who built the structures had followed these schematics.
While they constructed these homes and other structures basically like the blue-print would show, roughly two-thirds of the homes were utilizing one-fourth of the nails and screws which should have been holding the framework together. These General Contractors were certainly guilty of Bad Faith, as a blue-print is part of their contract with the homeowner. So consistently were these corners cut that it could not be interpreted as negligence, but was shown to be an intentional means of cutting costs.
The Northridge Earthquake initiated this cycle of class-action lawsuits brought by homeowners in the state. At this point, firms moved in like carpetbaggers, going door-to-door in many communities in order to organize class-action suits. If they could not prove that shoddy work was performed on the structure through framing schematics, then they went to the chemistry involved in laying the groundwork for structures in the area.
The fraying of carpet which was five or more years old did not result in the types of settlements that those in the legal field were looking for. However, once the concrete experts were brought in with their video evidence of slab failure, juries were swayed. They were able to convince the courts that these homeowners would be stuck with homes that were no longer livable due to conditions of structural integrity.
In hindsight we see that these concrete slabs, driveways, sidewalks, and curbs did not crumble and fail. While some of the insurance loopholes have been closed, it does not change the fact that the settlements were not used by the homeowners to repair or replace any concrete. These monies were used the way most free and easy money gets used, and we can only hope that some children were put through college at least.
Open peril contracts of insurance were the product primarily written by the Underwriters, and such contracts require that claims not covered be specified. Construction defects were consistently named as a coverage exclusion, as land-movement makes it impossible to discern what was done by the subcontractor versus what is normal wear and tear. However, the attorneys discovered a loophole, and filed their lawsuits under the completed operations portion of the policy.
About the Author:
If you have been looking everywhere for a construction defect expert it is now time to end your search. We have done all the research for you and highly recommend this professional at http://www.deanjvlahosfaia-associates.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment