Yes, and the these “reputable” builders should be held responsible. Buy cheap junk and charge for the good stuff. Imagine they are all out of business, or open under another name now.
Smells funny? Install it anyway and open the windows for a couple hours!
There is no pride in workmanship anymore or a lot of this would never have been hung in the first place.
I am glad to see at least an opening judgement correctly written on the merits of the case. Sorry the homeowner is caught in the middle but the insurance policy is not anticipating payment on this loss.
I agree with Good Hands. A case of the-cheaper-the-stuff-the-more-the-revenue. A Builder’s Risk policy would have solved the issue by underwriter subrogating against the supplier or the contractor. Hard times make builders and clients try to save on wrong issues, like quality or source control on the materials used. It would be interesting to see how many other quotes for whitewall did the contractor get at the time, otherwise it could be an omission on his side and become liable.
The right decision was made, based on the policy. The manufacturer of the defective product should be held liable for damages, but the HO policy clearly states there is no coverage. This should be the end-all, be-all on this topic. Period.
What does Chinese drywall and the insurance industry have in common? You can’t tell the stinkers based on outward appearance.
Accordingly to the majority of comments on this site, all builders are unethical scum who avoid responsibiltiy at every turn. I’m proud to work for a family-owned builder who has remediated over 70 homes built with Chinese drywall supplied by one of our subcontractors. Find me an insurance agent who would do the same if their E&O coverage proved to be as limiting as our CGL policy.
I don’t think the majority believe builders are unethical scum. We just see time after time the reinterpretation of an insurance policy by judges. It’s the mentality, well someone should pay and why not insurance companies even when it’s clear there is an exclusion. Just as a judge did in the Florida Panhandle after the 2003 Hurricane Mearzwa decision that ruled homeowners insurance would have to pay to rebuild homes stricken by flooding, because the homeowner did not have flood insurance. Someone should pay the homeowner. We see this time and time again in all forms of insurance from Home to General Liability to Work Comp. The courts finally ruled correctly. Of course it will be appealed and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will reverse the decision.
Read the policy. I am glad to see a judge do it. Maybe a few agents should do the same.
Finally, a Judge that will read a policy and interpret it on the basis of what it says in black and white print!
Most of the homes built in the last 20 years were disposable anyway.
Yes, and the these “reputable” builders should be held responsible. Buy cheap junk and charge for the good stuff. Imagine they are all out of business, or open under another name now.
If you can actually find the builder.
Smells funny? Install it anyway and open the windows for a couple hours!
There is no pride in workmanship anymore or a lot of this would never have been hung in the first place.
I am glad to see at least an opening judgement correctly written on the merits of the case. Sorry the homeowner is caught in the middle but the insurance policy is not anticipating payment on this loss.
I agree with Good Hands. A case of the-cheaper-the-stuff-the-more-the-revenue. A Builder’s Risk policy would have solved the issue by underwriter subrogating against the supplier or the contractor. Hard times make builders and clients try to save on wrong issues, like quality or source control on the materials used. It would be interesting to see how many other quotes for whitewall did the contractor get at the time, otherwise it could be an omission on his side and become liable.
Builders should be responsible for it but nowadays, most of the builder have filed for BK. What a shame. We can hardly see any product made in U.S.A.
Check this out.
Weird.
http://consumerist.com/2010/06/chinese-drywall-known-about-since-2006.html
The right decision was made, based on the policy. The manufacturer of the defective product should be held liable for damages, but the HO policy clearly states there is no coverage. This should be the end-all, be-all on this topic. Period.
What does Chinese drywall and the insurance industry have in common? You can’t tell the stinkers based on outward appearance.
Accordingly to the majority of comments on this site, all builders are unethical scum who avoid responsibiltiy at every turn. I’m proud to work for a family-owned builder who has remediated over 70 homes built with Chinese drywall supplied by one of our subcontractors. Find me an insurance agent who would do the same if their E&O coverage proved to be as limiting as our CGL policy.
I don’t think the majority believe builders are unethical scum. We just see time after time the reinterpretation of an insurance policy by judges. It’s the mentality, well someone should pay and why not insurance companies even when it’s clear there is an exclusion. Just as a judge did in the Florida Panhandle after the 2003 Hurricane Mearzwa decision that ruled homeowners insurance would have to pay to rebuild homes stricken by flooding, because the homeowner did not have flood insurance. Someone should pay the homeowner. We see this time and time again in all forms of insurance from Home to General Liability to Work Comp. The courts finally ruled correctly. Of course it will be appealed and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will reverse the decision.
It’s about time,, we won one….