Tyler P. Winton
Partner / Charleston
Tyler P. Winton is a partner in the Charleston office where he concentrates his practice in professional malpractice defense work. Tyler proudly focuses on the representation of architects and engineers within the construction litigation context. Tyler frequently defends design professionals against multi-million dollar construction and design defect claims, including class action litigation, multi-family projects, site work design, roadway engineering, design-build projects and more. Additionally, Tyler often represents developers, general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and even owners in lawsuits involving any construction-related disputes. He also defends other professionals, including realtors and attorneys. Beyond counsel in the litigation realm, Tyler offers non-litigation support for construction clients providing advice related to industry issues and payment disputes, as well as analyzing contracts in an effort to prevent disputes from arising in the future.
Prior to joining CCS, Tyler practiced law at a well-respected litigation boutique in Columbia, S.C., where he concentrated his practice on complex commercial litigation and the efficient resolution of business disputes. His business litigation background enhances his skills, experience, and perspective necessary to represent clients and resolve issues in the most efficient and desired manner. Fittingly, Tyler has been named a South Carolina Rising Stars® by Super Lawyers® in 2015, 2016 and 2017.
After graduating from Porter-Gaud, Tyler attended Vanderbilt University, where he graduated summa cum laude, obtained The Dean’s Award for Academic Excellence and became a member of Omicron Delta Kappa Honor Society. Tyler also studied abroad at The University of Sydney and pursued additional studies in London. After college graduation and a three-month motorcycle trip across the country, Tyler returned home to attend the University of South Carolina School of Law where he excelled academically, became a Competition Team Member of the Moot Court Bar and was elected to the Editorial Board of the Southeastern Environmental Law Journal.
Outside of work, he enjoys traveling (especially on purpose-driven mission trips), surfing, kite boarding, mountain climbing, community service, time with family and friends and adventure in most any form. Tyler is grateful for the opportunity to be engaged in his community through his continued service on the Advisory Council of Big Brothers Big Sisters and through his ongoing involvement with local organizations like One80 Place and Habitat for Humanity. In short, Tyler greatly enjoys his profession, the clients he has the honor of representing, his colleagues with whom he is humbled to work alongside and the community where he feels lucky to live.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification Defeated in South Carolina
January 5, 2017
Paul Sperry and Tyler Winton successfully defeated Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in South Carolina. As a result, Plaintiffs' attempt to secure class certification of a neighborhood of single family homes was denied. This is a huge win for all construction clients and carriers in South Carolina.
For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.
Tyler Winton Presented Troubleshooting Construction Project Legal Issues – NBI
February 12, 2018
Tyler Winton presented Troubleshooting Construction Project Legal Issues, at the NBI Seminar on February 12. Tyler's segment, Ethical Considerations focused on professional conduct, conflicts of interest and lawyer liability. Please contact Michelle Mattox at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.
Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP Names Three to Partnership
January 11, 2018
Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP congratulates Laura Paris Paton, Tyler P. Winton, and Tyler J. Wetzel on being selected to join the Firm’s partnership. Laura Paris Paton is a Partner in the Charleston office of Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP. She is co-chair of the firm’s Construction Litigation Practice Group and a member of the firm’s General Liability Practice Group. Laura holds an AV Preeminent Peer Review rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named a Super Lawyers Rising Stars® by Super Lawyers® in 2014, 2016 and 2017. Laura’s practice focuses primarily on Construction and Design Litigation representing contractors and design professionals in both the development of various types of construction projects as well as in a variety of disputes. She also provides corporate and individual clients with exceptional legal services in the areas of product liability defense, personal injury defense, and premises liability defense. Laura has successfully developed and executed resolution plans representing corporate entities and individuals in dozens of pre-litigation disputes and litigated cases and is a certified mediator. In addition to her practice with the firm, she is a published author, respected speaker, and avid volunteer. Laura is a member of the Board of Directors for the South Carolina Women Lawyers Association, leads the SCWLA Public Service Committee, serves on The CLM’s Diversity in Construction Committee, and is a member of the Elliottborough-Cannonborough Community Garden and Good Friends of the Lowcountry. She is a graduate of the South Carolina Bar Leadership Academy’s 2014 class. Laura received her J.D. from St. John's University School of Law in 2005 and a B.A. cum laude from Georgia State University in 2000. Tyler P. Winton is a Partner in the Charleston office where he concentrates his practice in professional malpractice defense work. Tyler proudly focuses on the representation of architects and engineers within the construction litigation context. He frequently defends design professionals against multi-million dollar construction and design defect claims, including class action litigation, multi-family projects, site work design, roadway engineering, design-build projects and more. Additionally, Tyler often represents developers, general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and even owners in lawsuits involving any construction-related disputes. Tyler also defends other professionals, including realtors and attorneys. Beyond counsel in the litigation realm, Tyler offers non-litigation support for construction clients providing advice related to industry issues and payment disputes, as well as analyzing contracts in an effort to prevent disputes from arising in the future. Prior to joining Carlock, Copeland & Stair, Tyler practiced law at a well-respected litigation boutique in Columbia, S.C., where he concentrated his practice on complex commercial litigation and the efficient resolution of business disputes. His business litigation background enhances his skills, experience, and perspective necessary to represent clients and resolve issues in the most efficient and desired manner. Tyler has been named a South Carolina Rising Stars® by Super Lawyers® in 2015, 2016 and 2017. After graduating from Porter-Gaud, Tyler attended Vanderbilt University, where he graduated summa cum laude, obtained The Dean's Award for Academic Excellence and became a member of Omicron Delta Kappa Honor Society. Tyler also studied abroad at The University of Sydney and pursued additional studies in London. After college graduation and a three-month motorcycle trip across the country, Tyler returned home to attend the University of South Carolina School of Law where he excelled academically, became a Competition Team Member of the Moot Court Bar and was elected to the Editorial Board of the Southeastern Environmental Law Journal. Tyler is engaged in his community through his service on the Advisory Council of Big Brothers Big Sisters and through his ongoing involvement with local organizations like One80 Place and Habitat for Humanity. Tyler J. Wetzel is a Partner in the Atlanta office and focuses his practice on commercial litigation, including accounting and legal malpractice defense. Prior to joining Carlock, Copeland & Stair, Ty served as a Staff Attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He assisted the Court in several capacities, such as serving on the Court’s jurisdiction unit, and worked on a broad range of federal cases. Ty’s experience with the Court developed his research and writing skills, and it gave him unique insight into both appellate practice and writing persuasive briefs and motions. Ty graduated cum laude from Washington University School of Law in 2009. While at Washington University, Ty served as a Board Member and Primary Editor of the Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. Ty received his undergraduate degree from Macalester College in 2006, where he also graduated cum laude. During his time at Macalester, Ty participated on the varsity football team Please click here for the PDF version.
Carlock Copeland Seminar – Risk Management for Design Professionals – Atlanta – November 17, 2016
November 17, 2016
Kent Stair, Bill Jones and the Design Professional Group presented How to Avoid, Manage and Resolve Claims Against Design Professionals and led a discussion regarding claims against design professionals which included advice on the best practices to avoid claims, how to handle claims when they cannot be avoided, and the various ways to resolve claims. This event was held at the Cobb Energy Centre on November 17. Please contact Patty O'Toole at email@example.com for more information.
Carlock, Copeland & Stair Attorneys Selected for 2016 South Carolina Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars®
April 22, 2016
We are proud to announce that 9 of our lawyers have been selected for inclusion on the South Carolina Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars® lists for 2016. Super Lawyers® Kent T. Stair - Construction Litigation Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers®. The selections for this esteemed list are made by the research team at Super Lawyers®, which is a service of the Thomson Reuters. Each year, the research team at Super Lawyers® undertakes a rigorous multi-phase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by the attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check. Rising Stars® Andrew W. Countryman - Professional Liability Defense Jackson H. Daniel, III - Civil Litigation Defense Douglas W. MacKelcan - Civil Litigation Defense Patrick J. Norris - Construction Litigation Laura Paris Paton - Construction Litigation Lee C. Weatherly - Medical Malpractice Defense Tyler P. Winton - Construction Litigation Rising Stars® is a listing of exceptional lawyers who are 40 years of age or under, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less, and have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 2.5 percent of the total lawyers in the state are honored on the Rising Stars® list.
Tyler Winton presented Building Non-Enclosure: Who’s at Fault?
January 28, 2016
Tyler Winton of Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP presented Building Non-Enclosure: Who’s at Fault? The event was held on January 28, 2016 at the Charleston Visitor Center, 375 Meeting Street, Charleston, SC 29403. Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP is a sponsor for this Building Enclosure Council event.
Construction Defect Litigation: From A to Z
May 6, 2015
Tyler Winton presented "Construction Defect Litigation: From A to Z" on May 6th, 2015 for NBI.
Location: Town & Country Inn & Conference Center 2008 Savannah Highway Charleston, SC 29407 / Event Details/Registration
Seminar: Construction Defect Litigation: From Start to Finish
May 6, 2015
Carlock Copeland Attorneys Selected for South Carolina 2018 Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars®
Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP is proud to announce that several of our lawyers have been selected for inclusion on the South Carolina Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars® lists for 2018. Super Lawyers recognizes attorneys who have distinguished themselves in their legal practice. Attorneys are chosen for this honor through a nomination process, peer review by practice area and independent research on candidates. The lengthy process identifies lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Meet our Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars®! Super Lawyers®, only five percent of attorneys in the state of South Carolina are selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers list: D. Gary Lovell, Jr. Kent T. Stair Rising Stars® list recognizes the top up-and-coming attorneys in the state – those who are 40 years old or younger, or those who have been practicing for 10 years or less. No more than 2.5 percent of eligible attorneys are named to the Rising Stars list, here are ours: J. Patrick Norris Laura Paris Paton Tyler P. Winton
Carlock Copeland Attorneys Selected for South Carolina 2017 Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars®
April 26, 2017
Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP is proud to announce that several of our lawyers have been selected for inclusion on the Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars® lists for 2017. Super Lawyers® Kent T. Stair - Construction Litigation Rising Stars® Douglas W. MacKelcan - Civil Litigation: Defense J. Patrick Norris- Construction Litigation Laura Paris Paton - Construction Litigation Tyler P. Winton - Construction Litigation
Carlock, Copeland & Stair Attorneys Selected for 2016 South Carolina Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars®
April 22, 2016
Carlock Copeland congratulates the following lawyers selected for inclusion on the South Carolina Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars® lists for 2016. Super Lawyers® Kent T. Stair - Construction Litigation Only five percent of the lawyers in the state are named by Super Lawyers®. The selections for this esteemed list are made by the research team at Super Lawyers®, which is a service of the Thomson Reuters. Each year, the research team at Super Lawyers® undertakes a rigorous multi-phase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by the attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check. Rising Stars® Jackson H. Daniel, III - Civil Litigation Defense Douglas W. MacKelcan - Civil Litigation Defense Patrick J. Norris - Construction Litigation Laura Paris Paton - Construction Litigation Lee C. Weatherly - Medical Malpractice Defense Tyler P. Winton - Construction Litigation Rising Stars® is a listing of exceptional lawyers who are 40 years of age or under, or who have been practicing for 10 years or less, and have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 2.5 percent of the total lawyers in the state are honored on the Rising Stars® list.
Graham and Winton Nurture Citizenship in Charleston Youth
June 13, 2014
As part of an iCivics local Charleston area schools event, Robin Graham and Tyler Winton presented “The Importance of Democracy” to students at two local Charleston, SC elementary schools. Tyler presented to first grade students at Sanders Clyde Elementary, and Robin presented to fifth grade students at Stiles Point Elementary. iCivics is a non-profit organization dedicated to reinvigorating civic learning through interactive and engaging learning resources. iCivics educational resources empower teachers and prepare the next generation of students to become knowledgeable and engaged citizens. Founded and led by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, iCivics provides students with the tools they need for active participation and democratic action, and teachers with the materials and support to achieve this. Their free resources include print-and-go lesson plans, award-winning games, and digital interactives. iCivics envisions a nation where all young Americans are prepared for active and intelligent citizenship, and Carlock Copeland is honored to play a role in their mission. Pictured: Tyler Winton co-presented to excited first graders at Sanders Clyde Elementary in Charleston, SC.
CCS Rides the Reading Express
April 29, 2013
In April, Carlock Copeland Attorneys Sarah Wetmore, Laura Paton, Tyler Winton, Andrew Countryman and Robin Graham (pictured) participated in the University of South Carolina’s “Cocky Reading Express”. The program, which features a visit from University mascot Cocky himself, an afternoon of volunteers reading books with 4K through second grade students, and gifts of new books to take home, is designed to help children understand the importance of life-long reading. CCS Attorneys were excited to serve as volunteer readers at Sanders-Clyde Elementary School in Charleston, SC. The program has given away more than 60,000 books to students to date. To learn more about the program, visit: Cocky Reading Express.
Publications and Presentations
Putative Class Action Plaintiffs Cannot Escape Their Enemy at the Gates – Article by Tyler Winton, Alex Davis & Clinton Magill
July 18, 2017
Recent article by Tyler Winton, Alex Davis & Clinton Magill published in SCDTAA's The Defense Line, Vol. 45, No. 1. Not long ago, many practitioners likely thought that class actions, while a relatively novel approach to large-scale construction defect claims, had limited realistic utility in construction defect litigation. Recently, however, courts have more leniently construed the concept of commonality, which has resulted in the filing of— and approval of—more and more putative class action construction defect claims every day. To remain vigilant in protecting our clients’ individual defenses, we as practitioners must find “new” ways to combat class certification. Recently, the South Carolina Court of Appeals recognized the validity of a class action waiver in Gates at Williams-Brice Condominium Ass'n v. DDC Construction, Inc. This article will briefly explore the growing class action trend and then dissect the courts’ holding in Gates and the lessons to be learned therefrom. While we do not have precise statistics on the frequency of class action construction defect claims in South Carolina, judging from the number of class action claims that we defend in our office alone; its popularity does not appear to be waning. Rather, the number of construction defect class actions seems to be growing, and the class actions themselves are proliferating. Unsurprisingly, the most frequent construction defect and design defect claims we encounter relate to condominium complexes. Nevertheless, we also see claims—albeit less frequently—relating to tract home builders that implement common construction methods on debatably similar single-family homes or townhome units. Plaintiff’s counsel will invariably offer differing justifications for the use of class actions to pursue their clients’ interests. Although we have had success in defeating the certifications of putative classes, and thus avoiding some of the risks inherent in class action litigation; frankly speaking, it is difficult to ignore the many potential benefits that encourage some plaintiff’s counsel to focus their practice on larger, multi-family putative class action claims. For some plaintiff’s counsel, the potentially limited financial and labor investments (e.g., avoiding retention of multiple experts, the shorter total duration of class claims versus the cumulative duration of every individual claim, etc.) pales in comparison to the potential recovery for, inter alia, percentage-based attorneys’ fees calculated from the entire class action settlement. This often makes representation of a putative class too enticing of an opportunity not to pursue. But wait, how did we get here? Arguably, class action litigation had its origin in bills of peace in equity involving multiple parties. A bill of peace could be brought when a lord of the manor appropriated village common lands to the loss of the manorial tenants, or when a vicar quarreled with his parishioners about tithes. For a time, class action litigation in South Carolina was governed by S.C. Code § 15-5-50 (prior to July 1, 1985), which provided: “When the question is one of common or general interest to many persons or when the parties are very numerous and it may be impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of the whole.” Common law roots of the class action "bill of peace" were eventually thrown out in Baughman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. In that case, the Court stated that SCRCP Rules 23 and 42 (related to class actions and consolidation) had the same effect as a bill of peace and thus rendered it unnecessary. Today, parties seeking class certification bear the burden of proving five prerequisites under South Carolina law. A class may be certified only if all prerequisites under Rule 23(a), SCRCP are satisfied. The court must find: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and, (5) the amount in controversy exceeds one hundred dollars for each member of the class. In deciding whether class certification is proper, the court must apply a rigorous analysis to determine each prerequisite is satisfied. The burden in proving the five prerequisites under South Carolina law rests with the plaintiffs. Importantly, “[t]he failure of the proponents to satisfy any one of the prerequisites is fatal to class certification.” Notwithstanding these established rules for determining the appropriateness of putative class action claims, litigators continue to argue over how to actually apply the rules in the context of ever-proliferating class action scenarios. Although the courts’ trending liberal interpretations of commonality and typicality have certainly betrayed many defense attorneys’ principled understanding of the class action device, these loose interpretations did not appear out of thin air, devoid of any rational justification. Rather, they are likely a byproduct of the situational impracticality of trial courts efficiently and effectively presiding over hundreds—or even thousands—of individual homeowner claims in construction defect cases. In those situations, courts have become increasingly amenable to approving a putative class representing a bloated collection of homeowners with similar claims stemming from the same development. However, as the number of class actions has grown, so too have the recognized defenses to certification. One recent and important example is the class action waiver defense. This defense, as recognized by the Court of Appeals in Gates, is explored below. On August 31, 2016, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a decision clarifying the extent to which defendants may utilize certain defenses to Rule 23 class actions. In Gates, the Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether a class action waiver in the Master Deed of a condominium complex could prohibit the complex’s property owners’ association from bringing a class action against the developer and a number of contractors involved in the construction of the units. In Gates, the putative class members alleged a myriad of construction defects at the project. In response, the defendants sought enforcement of a class action waiver contained within a jury trial waiver subsection of the alternative dispute resolution section of the Master Deed. The Master Deed was originally drafted by the developer; however, shortly after the class action complaint was filed, the property owners’ association amended the master deed. The master deed was amended to remove class action and jury trial waiver provisions, as well as provisions related to the limitation of warranties and arbitration. The defendants filed a motion for a non-jury trial and to strike the homeowners’ class action allegations and jury trial demand more than a year after the original complaint was filed— but only three days after the final defendant in the case answered the second amended complaint. The trial court denied the defendants motion on a number of grounds, including (1) that the master deed had been amended to remove the provisions in question; (2) that the defendants waived enforcement of the arbitration provisions in the Master Deed, which included the class action and jury trial waiver; (3) that the provisions in question were unconscionable, oppressive, and one-sided and, therefore, not enforceable; and, (4) that the defendants failed to timely challenge the amendment or to challenge the mode of trial. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals rejected each of the trial court’s grounds for refusing to grant Defendants motion. The court held that the amendments to the master deed, which occurred after the initial filing of the complaint and as a result of the litigation, could not retroactively remove the class action and jury trial waivers. Furthermore, the court found that the waivers were “conspicuous and unambiguous” and “expressly incorporated into each unit owner’s purchase contract.” The court also noted that each purchaser was represented by counsel during the closing for the unit and could have directed questions about these waivers to counsel. In light of this, the court held that the waivers were knowing and enforceable. Finally, because it determined that the waivers remained valid and enforceable despite the decision of the Defendants not to seek arbitration, the court found that the jury trial and class action waivers were “completely separate and distinct” and set forth in different subsections of the master deed.  Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case with instructions to grant the motion for a nonjury trial and strike the class action allegations.  Two non-exhaustive, but important lessons should be taken from the Court of Appeals’ decision in Gates. First, it is imperative that construction defendants named in a putative class action complaint immediately investigate whether defenses such as class action waiver, jury trial waiver, or arbitration agreements should be asserted in a responsive pleading. In Gates, a substantial portion of the parties’ arguments and the written opinion of the court were dedicated to the issue of whether or not the Defendants had properly and timely raised the mode of trial defenses. Although the Court of Appeals ultimately held that the issue was sufficiently raised and pled, early research and review of the Master Deed or other agreements and the specific assertion of class action waiver, jury trial waiver, the existence of an arbitration agreement, and other affirmative defenses may help avoid the need for costly appeals over these defenses. The second lesson gleaned from Gates is that developers should continue to utilize clear, unequivocal language to waive the right to class actions and non-jury trials in Master Deeds. The provisions of the Master Deed should also be incorporated into the bylaws of the property owners’ association, as the Gates court found this incorporation by reference to be additional support for its finding that the waivers in that case were enforceable. Although the class action trend in construction defect litigation is unlikely to dissipate anytime in the near future, more defenses to certification will be recognized as the class action enters a growing spotlight. While not an entirely novel concept, the class action waiver is now a recognized defense in South Carolina. Defendants should always be sure to check the Master Deed for class action waiver language, as they may be able to nip a putative class action in the bud. Because we handle more and more construction defect class actions every day, we are in a prime position to keep you apprised of the important developments in this area of the law.  No. 5438, 2016 S.C. App. LEXIS 110 (Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016).  See Stephen C. Yeazell, Group Litigation and Social Context: Toward a History of the Class Action, 77 COLUM. L. REV. 866, 866-96 (1977).  In re Consumers Power Co. Sec. Litig., 105 F.R.D. 583, 600 (E.D. Mich. 1985).  378 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1989).  See Rule 23(a), SCRCP; Waller v. Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass'n, 388 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1990).  Rule 23(a), SCRCP.  Waller, 388 S.E.2d at 801 (citing General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982)).  Id. at 801.  Ferguson v. Charleston Lincoln/Mercury, 544 S.E.2d 285, 289 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Waller, 388 S.E.2d at 801).  No. 5438, 2016 S.C. App. LEXIS 110.  Id. at *1.  Id. at *8.  Id. at *4-5.  Id. at *4-7.  Id. at *7-8.  Id. at *8-9.  Id. at *10-30.  Id. at *10-30.  Id. at *10-30.  Id.  Id. at *28. The court of appeals also noted that whether or not the homeowners were aware of the waivers, they could not avoid their effect under South Carolina law. Id. at *26.  Id at *29-30.  Id at *30-31. On November 17, 2016, the South Carolina Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs petition for rehearing in this matter. Gates at Williams-Brice v. DDC Constr., Inc., No. 5438, 2016 S.C. App. LEXIS 151, at *1 (Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2016).  See, e.g., 2016 S.C. App. LEXIS 110, at *12-19.  See id. at *26 For more information on SCDTAA's Publication The Defense Line or to read the entire publication, click here.
Tyler P. Winton will present Ethics for Construction Attorneys
August 10, 2016
Tyler P. Winton will present Ethics for Construction Attorneys at the January 25, 2017 NBI Construction Law: Advanced issues and Answers Seminar.
Key Fire Prevention Changes in International Building Code 2012
September 1, 2014
This article was written by Laura Paton and Tyler Winton for the Vol. 16 No. 2 issue of Under Construction, the Newsletter of the American Bar Association's Forum on the Construction Industry. The origins of modern building codes lie in the Industrial Revolution.1 In fact, one of the nation’s first building codes was created as a direct result of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.2 In order to placate the National Board of Fire Underwriters who threatened to cut off insurance for business, Chicago adopted the National Building Code, directed toward protecting the building rather than the people in the building.3 As it became clear that increased regulation of the building environment was required, code practitioners banded together to promulgate several model building codes.4 These model codes were developed for subsequent adoption by local and state government agencies as legally enforceable regulations and the foundation for the modern International Building Code (IBC).5 Three groups of practitioners began to dominate the field of model building codes: Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) founded in 1915, International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), founded in 1922, and Southern Building Code Congress, International (SBCCI), founded in 1940.6 Each group established the building codes for their particular geographic region.7 BOCA developed the National Building Code (NBC) which reflects the needs of highly urbanized environments in the northeast.8 ICBO published the Uniform Building Code (UBC) in 1927, which contained structural provisions reflecting the west’s exposure to earthquakes and the need for proper seismic design.9 Finally, SBCCI developed the Standard Building Code (SBC), placing particular emphasis on wind-resistive design in recognition of the southeastern states’ exposure to hurricanes.10 Because each of these model codes reflected the needs prevalent in their region, they differed in format, content, and appearance.11 Read more.
Contractual Issues and Common Legal Pitfalls Related to Building Enclosure
January 19, 2012
Paul Sperry, Patrick Norris, and Tyler Winton presented a program on contractual issues and common legal pitfalls related to building enclosure on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at a meeting for The Building Enclosure Council–Charleston. This three part program included presentations on "Mock Mediation: Can't We All Just Get Along?," "Green Building and Potential for Litigation Involving Building Enclosure," and "Common Insurance Policies and Typical Coverage Provided for Claims That Relate to The Building Enclosure."