Bad Builders Need Fixing, Not the Law
* A recent column (“The Litigation Epidemic Is Killing Off Affordable Housing,” April 17) by a lobbyist for the housing industry proposes restrictions on construction defect lawsuits. The law does not need correction. The irresponsible builder does.
In the late ‘80s, shoddy and dangerous building practices were commonplace. As a construction defect lawyer, I have seen many buildings that were damaged in the recent earthquake because required safety protection was missing. Fires often reveal similar dangers.
When defects, often life-threatening, appear, the developer, not the innocent homeowner, should pay for the repair. Built right the first time, safety costs pennies; after the fact, repairs can be costly.
Most developers will make only minor repairs voluntarily. Homeowners associations usually sue only after getting the run-around from the developer. Insurance companies do not pay large settlements unless costly repairs are required, trial is approaching, the developer is at fault, and the homeowners’ lawyer can prove it.
When I was a boy, I used to play with Roger down the street. Roger had the habit, when he was losing a game, of trying to change the rules. The building industry is like Roger. Now that careless building practices are becoming costly, the industry wants to change the rules.
The anti-consumer legislation (Dwight) Hansen proposes will not create safe, affordable housing. It will shield those who build defective homes by creating more technical hurdles for homeowners who seek their day in court, and more division within associations.
This industry should play by the same rules as everyone else. Instead of changing these rules, it should work to reform the rogues in its ranks.
DAVID G. EPSTEIN
Irvine
* Re: the “Commentary on Insurance,” (April 17), the commentary is both timely and accurate.
As an architect/construction expert, I’ve been retained by numerous insurance companies and attorneys to provide investigation and analysis of plaintiff-homeowner’s allegations of construction defects, which are frequently found to be without merit.
The insurance companies settle these cases, more frequently than not, for substantial cash payments, leaving the defense analysis unrepresented due to the cost effectiveness of avoiding trial.
Mediation is one solution. But only when insurance companies establish, as a normal procedure, their willingness to mount a strong and winning defense will the litigation epidemic be abated.
BRUCE WADE
Laguna Beach
