Well said. I wish basic economics would be required in high school. Then people might understand how markets work.
Thanks, I was worried somebody would give me a bad time about it. Back to woodworking posts for me.
Your second clue should be the brand name.
Yes, you *do* seem to have trouble with a lot of simple things.
One does not have insurance to afford to lose a suit. One has insurance to afford to WIN it.
Capitalism at its finest. Give the customer exactly what they are willing pay for. That is why WalMart is making money and Macy's not so much.
Non-sequitur.
In article ,
Not at all. One does not have insurance to pay for losing a suit. One has insurance to pay the attorneys to fight it.
Well, maybe not most of it. The 'squeal like a pig scene' was the next best thing. Read up sometime on what went on when they filmed that. =3D:O
R
The most common name was Knauf, a German company that makes or imports drywall from all over the world.
Seams to be a bit higher in the investment/financial services sector these days - and even 1 to 2 percent is WAY too high.
You didn't actually _read_ the article, did you? The Chinese drywall was used because the demand exceeded the American supply. USG seems to do pretty well making gypsum product's domestically.
We now live in Las Vegas, where during the 2001-2007 time frame, hundreds of thousands of new homes were built during a real estate feeding frenzy. While we lucked out on the drywall issue here (several gyp mines locally and all local drywall), there were other alleged construction defects that were or are being litigated or negotiated. As far as I know, no contractor or subcontractor knowingly installed anything that would have harmed a home or the occupants. However, the litigators really had a feeding frenzy with construction defect suits.
One of the fights here involved the elimination of weep screeds at the bottom of stucco siding. Another involved Kitec plumbing fittings and flexible piping, while another involved a different reinforcement in slabs. There are also issues even with copper pipe that comes in contact with soil under a slab. In NC, we had the issue of disintegration of man made lap siding and delamination of man made stucco over foam.
My reason for mentioning this is to illustrate my belief that virtually any change from the old, tried and true methods or materials of construction carries risk of varying degree. Homes are built to last for generations and Murphy's Law applies to new materials, construction techniques, different suppliers and man made anything installed in a home. Even the most benign change from what's been done for years and years with success can result in a construction defect.
The insurance companies were dinged badly with the black mold issue of the 90's. Whenever somebody discovered mold, even after a window leaked for years, it was considered to be an insurable event. Now, the folk with drywall problems are feeling the spin-off effect. Insurance companies might exclude drywall related issues in policies, but some judge somewhere at some time will decide for the "social good" to make them responsible. Their only hope to escape this is to cancel or refuse to renew policies once they become aware of the drywall problem. I sure can't blame them, since it's a huge liability otherwise.
quoted text -
How do you know that it is "used up"?
Once you have defective material in the supply chain, you never know when it will turn up.
I agree on the line of liability.
Bring deep pockets to any court.
TMT
I think you are right.
The first claim is not the last one in a corrosive environment.
TMT
e quoted text -
They are now.
And are liable from now.
TMT
It should be.
TMT
LOL...they are Republican home movies.
TMT
Well said.
TMT
In Las Vegas, Sun City Summerlin found defects in homes, built pre
1995. Homes with PEX pipes and some brass connectors (Zurn ??!). The connectors were made in Canada. They contained to much Zinc during the manufacturing and corroded years later, leaked behind stucco, caused mold, on and on.The judge declared a class action case. IIRC, they went after the Canadian company and the builder.
It might still be pending - dunno.
Isn't that just typically NOT, Government for the people by the people?
No matter how loud people yell 'Socialism' or some other label that they don't really understand anyway, honest, uncorrupted, caring governance is a political business that supposedly allows us to live together in hopefully civilized societies.
The lack of that is painfully obvious in places such as Mexico (Criminal gangs etc.) many places in Africa and elsewhere where war- lords control local society etc.
Weak, incomplete, corrupt government allows a 'cowboy/gangster' element consisting of paid lobbyists, industrial interests, organised crime, to control government while ineffectively regulated financial institutions and banking rip off the consumer (i.e. the people). And ultimately we pay for all those mistakes by higher taxes and erosion of our basic basic freedoms.
Blah, blah ..... and the pursuit of happiness etc.
Wake up; make government effective. One of the great weaknesses of so called 'Capitalism' is that it can reward the few, far too magnificently, while denying reasonable basic human needs to many.
Denying insurance coverage for something a citizen had no control over is inhuman. But in between gross negligence such as driving while impaired and causing death and inadvertent responsibility for something minor, there will be in-between situations. Finding out one's home has incorporated wall board now found to be smelly or even health hazardous seems to hardly be the responsibility of the person who now owns the home. Where were the import agencies, the building standards, the inspection agencies, the mortgage or loan people who authorized payments, the municipal authorities who issued an occupancy permit, the insurance company who accepted the premium thereby ruling the house was an 'Acceptable risk'?. Were they all incompetent and unregulated? Hmm! Some better governemnt needed, eh?
No matter how much somebody yells 'Individual freedom'.
OK. If I was building a shack out in the boondocks, out of scrap, with no running water and no electrcity and no services I would not expect an insurance company to cover me and/or any inspector to check up on my 'shed' next time I straightened a few used nails etc. But if someone prudently builds or buys in a well regulated town or city there should be effective governance and follow up on everything we do. Then action for correcting a problem placed on those responsible.
Commercial corps. often do this in their own interest. A recent example; my neighbour had deteriorating siding made from some sort of cement product. He was required to complain through the supplier to the manufacturer who visited and determined improper storage prior to installation. My neighbour has or will receive compensation not only for the material but also for the cost of labour/time (his own). Good corporation that; stands behind it's product even though the errror was by the local supplier representing that corporation.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.