Slog - Comments on Props to Chopp (and Rossi) from the BIAW

Comment by kinaidos

kinaidos — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:10:02 -0800

The lead pipes were almost certainly as spec'd out though, so that's not the builders fault. It's the developper's. The same goes for much of the shoddy construction we've seen over the last few years. It's all to spec for the most part. It's the specs that suck. The problem is caveat emptor for new buildings, not a lack of warranty on new work. This bill did nothing to address that problem.

Comment by Reality Check

Reality Check — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:26:13 -0800

It's only a liability risk if you do shitty work. In theory it sounds good, but I can see many people abusing the additional "power" to try and skip out of paying for legitimate work by holding builders to too high of a standard. The bill should have included provisions outlining a mediation process and not a strict liability mandate.

Good in theory, but in actual application there were glaring loopholes that our "sue happy" society would have taken to the bank.

Reality Check

Comment by George

George — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:40:53 -0800

Oh, and Weinstein, always prickly, is leaving the State Senate. So Chopp will have one less pesky liberal to worry about.

Comment by Chip

Chip — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:49:02 -0800

I don't see how the housing bill would help the lead pipe situation you cited. Would this hold the construction company more liable than now? It sounds as if the company providing the fittings is already getting sued, appropriately; I don't really see how more legislation would help this.

Comment by Gidge

Gidge — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:56:48 -0800

@1, they're not LEAD pipes--a component used in the system is depositing lead in the pipes and, indirectly, the water.

Although the manufacturer of the system probably carries most of the direct liability for the lead, the story is an example of how things can go REALLY wrong in new construction.

There are a number of reasons why the SHA story isn't the best example of why the bill is necessary, but that doesn't make the bill itself irrelevant. If you go to the legislative summary of the bill (as killed by Chopp), it's fairly reasonable.

Comment by Gitai

Gitai — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:44:59 -0800

@2 Washington State has held that if one house in a subdevelopment is defective, that the owners of all the houses in that subdevelopment can sue. Because of that, Farmers is the only company selling insurance to artisan contractors (plumbers, electricians, painters, etc.) that will allow policy holders to build more than five units. No general contractors can build more than five units under any policy sold in this state. To do that, you have to purchase a policy through a surplus lines broker, and those are fucking expensive.