Insurance Litigation Backed By The Statements Of A Construction Defect Expert

By Stella Gay


The courtrooms of California have always seen their share of nonsense litigation. For many of these lawsuits, the matter started as a claim against an insurance policy. Attorneys discovered a method for taking advantage of the courts, and they utilized a construction defect expert to do so.

Experts utilized in California at this time had specialized knowledge about carpet and wood as well as concrete. Specific firms used specific individuals who had perfected a presentation which claimed that the concrete in question was so poorly mixed that their homes would cave in after the concrete crumbled. Ten years was frequently given as the time-frame in which one could expect to see this occur.

These lawsuits were part of a Litigious attack on Lloyds which occurred during the 1990s, following the Northridge earthquake. After this devastating natural disaster, several thousand homeowners went to the original blue-prints of their homes and checked the framing that existed with what had been promised on the original schematics. With the aid of some experts on drafting and architecture, a jury was shown how only 25% of promised structural reinforcement had actually been performed.

In many cases, nearly 75% of all structures built by certain companies had utilized a program of nailing only one nail out of every five promised on the blue-print. This was so consistent that a jury accepted it as an intentional business practice. Many large settlements were awarded, and several hundred structures were either reworked or completely torn down due to structural integrity problems.

Many of these homeowners were able to get settlements on homes that were basically destroyed by an earthquake in a region where earthquakes are generally not covered in homeowners policies. Some of the claims were paid as nuisance-value lawsuits which, in any other venue, might have been thrown out. However, rather than being dissuaded, counsel in California pursued larger settlements via presentations made by technical experts.

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.

Now that twenty years has passed, everyone can see that this concrete did not dissolve. Settlement funds paid out were supposed to be utilized for the laying of a better grade of concrete. Instead, one sees that these funds were used most often to pay off the mortgages on these homes; which is understandable considering the cost of property in the area.

The loophole within the contract allowed for suits to be brought under the completed operations coverage. Construction defects were denied under any liability policy underwritten for general contractors in this region. Just as homeowners insurance cannot spread the risk far enough to cover earthquake damage, general liability policies cannot cover contractors for construction defects in an area where land movement can manifest defects overnight.




About the Author:



No comments:

Post a Comment