Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
, David McGrath Schwartz
Wednesday, May 13, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Document
Sun Archives
- Construction defect legislation remains contentious (4-29-2009)
- Deadlines and dead ends (4-26-2009)
- Assembly bill scores one for lawyers in construction defect tug of war (4-22-2009)
Sun Coverage
Sun Blogs
Democrats are locked in an increasingly acrimonious battle over construction defect legislation, which has emerged as one of the most contentious issues this session.
Senate Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, passed a bill on a vote of 19-1 to curtail homeowner lawsuits against builders and subcontractors — a priority for the powerful but struggling construction industry.
Attorneys for homeowners groups vehemently oppose the measure because, they say, it would limit the rights of buyers who were dealt shoddy homes.
But the legislation, Senate Bill 349, is being held up in the Assembly, where Judiciary Committee Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, hasn’t set a date to give the bill a hearing.
Care, in turn, won’t hold hearings on certain Assembly bills.
Anderson said he has told his committee “not to be surprised if their bills weren’t processed” in Senate Judiciary, Anderson said. “Scare tactics have been put on me, people have called me,” he said.
Although Anderson acknowledged that current law is imperfect, he said he would hear a bill only if it were “well agreed to,” meaning more moderate so as to not draw such strong opposition.
Anderson wouldn’t disclose which Assembly bills are gathering dust in the Senate, but he expressed displeasure with Care: “It’s a bad tactic. I won’t go for it.”
According to legislative staff, the Senate Judiciary Committee will have heard 70 of 73 bills referred to it by an important Friday deadline.
The three bills are all important to Anderson and Assembly Democrats, including Assembly Bill 388 and Assembly Bill 476, which involve gaming regulation.
Assembly Bill 495, which would loosen caps on medical malpractice awards, is the ultimate hostage, as it is an important goal of trial lawyers, who happen to be Care’s enemy on construction defect legislation.
Care brushed off the issue. “Uh-uh,” he said, noting that his committee has passed a number of Assembly Judiciary bills.
The conflict offers evidence of heightened tensions as the session nears its end.
Also on display: Democrats’ practice of infighting, which has historical roots of flying elbows every four years on the floor of their national conventions. Most fights like this among Republicans are settled behind closed doors.
Perhaps ironically, the standoff could lead to a compromise. The builders and subcontractors and their lobbyists, desperate to come away with at least something this session in preparation for the next building boom, will reach out to the other side in hopes of reaching a deal, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions.
It’s not clear what a compromise would look like, however.
Current construction defect law offers a process to avert full-blown litigation, known as Chapter 40 for its place in Nevada statutes.
Builders and subcontractors say Care’s bill is welcome relief. They say the current system is flooded with bogus claims and exorbitant legal fees and often impedes home repairs.
The legislation would tilt the system significantly toward builders and subcontractors. Plaintiffs attorneys say it goes too far, imposing severe curbs on the rights of homeowners.
Chapter 40 was a compromise passed in the middle of the 1990s building boom to create a process to resolve disputes before litigation. Under it, homeowners who file lawsuits cannot claim noneconomic damages, such as emotional distress or punitive damages.
On the other hand, builders are obligated to pay the homeowners’ costs of bringing lawsuits, provided homeowners agree to reasonable settlements.
Builders and subcontractors say built-in attorney and expert fees create perverse incentives to bring Chapter 40 actions against them.
The proposed legislation would more narrowly define a construction defect. To qualify as defective, a home would have to present “unreasonable risk of injury to a person or property.” Alternately, it would have to meet all of the following criteria: violate building codes, cause damage to the property, and be built in a manner not “good and workmanlike” according to industry standards.
Currently, just one of those criteria — violating a building code — needs to exist to mark a home as defective and qualify it for the Chapter 40 process.
The legislation would also eliminate a provision in the law that allows plaintiffs to collect “reasonable attorney’s fees.”
A construction defect lawyer has offered withering attacks on the legislation. Scott Canepa, who’s litigated hundreds of Chapter 40 cases since the law’s inception, said the bill would leave homeowners, thousands of whom bought substandard houses during the building boom, defenseless against builders and their insurance companies and lawyers.
Canepa said current law necessarily requires nothing more than code violation to qualify as a construction defect.
“The code is the minimum standard to protect life, limb and property,” he said. If Nevada were to change the law to require criteria in addition to a code violation, the state “would leave the door open for contractors to build houses that are riddled with construction defects, without recourse for the homeowners.”
In 1990 the builders sought and received legislation to deal with their poor quality construction issues under the Chapter 40 regulation of the law. Ever since then, the builders have constantly sought to dismantled the law in favor of their industry.
In 2003 the builders promoted and received a major change in the law that would allow them to fix a code deficient home before they could get sued. Which opened the door to even more shoddy work.
Now in 2009 the builders want to change the definition to the word "defects"; Now they want nothing to be considered a defect until it actually causes damage to the home. And then only the homes with the damage would be required to be repaired, while the rest of the homes with potential damage would have to wait until they failed before they could be fixed.
The auto industry use to have the same anti-consumer strategy with regards to the exploding gas tanks in the Ford Pinto years ago. That was until they were sued and the cost of the suits was more expensive than the savings they recieved by putting the public at risk.
Litigation has a empowering influence for manufacturers to build it right. Take that power away and we will have thousand of Ford Pinto exploding again, killing tens of thousand of people. The same is true in the residential home building industry if there is no cause and effect to negative construction.
The builders are seeking to limit their warranty time to less then that of your average $30,000 dollar car.... what does that tell you about their product?
If this law was to be passed, which it should not be, 50,000 homeowners in Clark County with the Kitec plumbing would have no recourse to getting their homes repaired by the builders or subcontractors that built the homes. They would have been outside the new time limits for claims that the builders are seeking... and would have to wait until the pipes burst before they could make any claim to their problem.
EXTREME MAKEOVERS, THE ABC SPECIAL PROGRAM THAT HELPS DESPERATE HOMEOWNERS WITH CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS, JUST REBUILT A HOME IN LAS VEGAS THAT WAS ONLY 12 YEARS OLD.....
SHAME ON BUILDERS FOR BUILDING CODE DEFICIENT HOMES...
HOORAY FOR WRIGHT CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS FOR TEARING THE HOME DOWN AND BUILDING IT (W)RIGHT...
MC Mojave John Wilson is at it again!! AKA Mojave Construction.......
TODAYS LAS VEGAS SUN ARTICLE***
In papers filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Del Webb said the defect suit filed April 6 in Clark County District Court is related to what it calls the rogue business practices of home inspector M.C. Mojave Construction and two men associated with that firm, Charles Partington and John Wilson.
The April 6 defect suit was filed by attorneys with the law firm Angius & Terry LLP on behalf of 304 Sun City Anthem development.
In Monday's federal court filing, Del Webb seeks to move the defect case to federal court and associate it with its own federal lawsuit against M.C. Mojave, Partington and Wilson.
A federal judge last October issued a preliminary injunction against M.C. Mojave, Partington and Wilson after Del Webb complained they offered free home inspections to residents with the undisclosed goal of signing them up for construction defect lawsuits; and falsely claimed to be associated with Del Webb.
Del Webb complained in the existing federal suit against M.C. Mojave, Partington and Wilson they "solicited inspections and fomented ... construction defect claims against Del Webb by door-to-door canvassing, creating and maintaining a Web site and distributing hundreds of fliers and placards throughout Del Webb communities, including Sun City Anthem. Defendants' solicitations and statements were directed at and made to homeowners who are 60 years of age or older and are therefore defined as elderly under Nevada law."
"Through face-to-face solicitations, fliers, placards and maintenance of a Web site, their inspection reports and other communications, defendants intentionally misled homeowners into believing defendants were properly licensed and authorized under Nevada law to inspect residences and to make and communicate inspection reports,"
Del Webb also claims the defendants misled homeowners into believing they were associated with Del Webb, failed to disclose their financial relationships with law firms interested in filing construction defect suits and misrepresented that their inspections were free when they weren't.
Wilson, the suit charges, placed placards around Sun City Anthem because of the homeowners' senior age status and capitalized on their senior status with "overbearing sales tactics."
Mc Mc John know wonder you would not want the laws changed. This would put you completely out of business. Are you saying I have missed my MARK once again!
LV1TEAM
Why is this concept so hard for the contractor/builders to grasp. It is very simple... Build it correctly and then you won't have to worry about it!
LV1TEAM
I am not sure if you missed the mark or not... I do know that you cut and pasted only part of the article without giving the reader the knowledge that you left out a good portion of the article... why would you do that if you were not trying to deceive the readers.
We provided over a thousand inspection in the Valley for free.... only about 65% of the home owners asked for our help to watch over the correction being made by the subcontractors who failed to do the work right in the first place.
In California the law states that a homeowner has the right to deny the guilty subcontractor from making the repairs. Which I think is a good idea. I know I would not want a surgeon operating on me that failed to do the surgery right the first time. But in this state the contractors who violated code requirements has the right to try it again. Thus homeowners hire us to make sure it is done right.
Here is a simple concept for you LV1Team ... if I am soliciting my goods in an elderly community it is only because Del Webb sold these code defected homes to the elderly. My business was to give the "elderly" homeowners the knowledge they needed to get their homes fixed..... so who is taking advantage of the elderly? Me who is helping them or Del Webb who is suing MC Mojave in order to keep me from helping them?
These homeowners pay nothing out of their pocket for my services to help them gain the home they thought they bought, while they paid everything out of their pocket to buy a defective home from the builder....
So LV1TEAM, how could you miss the mark, when your mark is to support your friends the builder....
Why isn't the Building Inspectors doing their job as well?
A condo and 2 homes I have purchased over the last 10 years were defective. Plumbing, electrical, roofing, drywall, no isulation,foundation issues, sinking land,gas fireplaces installed inproperly, causing smoke to back up into the home, even windows that were installed in where the screws are on the outside, for anyone to come unscrew and remove them, I could go on and on! The builders are doing very shoddy work. The builders are really bad, but I would like to know why the homes are passing inspection.
I put an addition on a home, and that Building Inspector rode our backs on each and every thing we did, why not ride the Homebuilders as well? I doubt very seriously if the inspectors are even inspecting...
If anything we need stronger laws... You bet the builders, as well as the inspecters that signed off on these homes should be held accountable!
What I think really stinks is you CAN'T hold the city or county building inspector accountable.
this is all such a joke. builders and contractors get lien rights on property, after only 'substantial completion' of their work, which allows them to take the property and sell it to get what they expected. they also get mandatory and guaranteed attorneys fees when they have to go get what they expected. but when it comes to buyers of their homes, they don't want you to be able to do anything to make sure you get what you expected until it completely fails, such as an electrical defect causes a fire, or a plumbing defect floods your house before you can sue. and then, it better happen w/n 4 years, or they want your time cut off. and even then, if your house does burn or flood w/n 4 years, they want you to pay your lawyer and everyone else you'll need to prove your case out of the award for repairs.
a few years ago the builders and contractors wanted to change the law so they could 'substantially comply' w/the building codes. c'mon man, we almost complied w/the building code minimums...we almost got it right, pay us and shut up.
care was a democrat before going to work for a firm that works for land developers and builders.