"Building Battles in a Boom Town"
Clark County Bar Association Offers Seminar
-and-
Nevada Supreme Court Justices Address "Calloway" Decision
by Joe Wheeler

From The Construction Zone: November 2000

Sponsored by

Lawyers and legislators debated issues surrounding construction defect laws and litigation at the Clark County Government Center in October.

State senator Mike Schneider argued that contractors require the right to repair, and that allowing contractors to do so will address most homeowner’s concerns. Entry-level homebuilders in Las Vegas have been sued out of existence, Schneider said, with settlement money from construction defect lawsuits going to trial lawyers and homeowners with no mandate on repairs being completed. This sets the stage for actual problems being passed on to what he called, "Future generations."

That view was opposed by defect attorney Nancy Quon, who said that homeowners have tried to contact their builders thousands of times with no luck, and have turned to litigation only as a last resort. Quon didn’t specify if it had been developers, builders, or subcontractors who had taken those thousands of calls; the Construction Zone has documented case after case in which subcontractors were first made aware of problems through a lawsuit. In some cases, subcontractors have been sued while in the act of completing repairs under warranty, and told they are no longer allowed on the property.

Schneider says he will back legislation that will give contractors a chance to repair.

State senator Dina Titus, who predicted that the 2001 legislative session will be another hard-fought battle over the issue, said that she would not automatically rule out such a reform bill, yet her primary concern is the homeowner.

Nevada Supreme Court Justices Address Calloway Decision

by Joe Wheeler

Justices A. William Maupin and Nancy Becker, members of the panel who decided the Calloway V. City of Reno case that changed the construction defect litigation landscape, attended the Clark County Bar Association’s seminar, "Building Battles in a Boom Town" in October.

The court was unaware of the overall impact of construction defects on the public at the time of the Calloway decision. That decision, in fact, was spurred by the plaintiffs seeking special consideration in defect cases. The court did not agree, yet since then has become more aware of the issue.

"This is an issue that has some very important philosophical implications," said justice Maupin.

The Calloway decision bars claims for negligence and recovery for damages, yet did not address Chapter 40 since the law did not exist at the time the Calloway suit was filed. The decision also did not address warranty issues, third-party issues, professional negligence or malpractice. Calloway V. Reno did not address economic loss or the ability to sue.

"What we have here is a complex and emotional set of facts," said Becker. She outlined some of the questions that could come before the court in the future, among them the public policy issue of a bankrupt builder or developer. "Should we create a public policy?" Becker said.

Back to Main Page