DECK EXPERT BECOMES CERTIFIED MER-KO APPLICATOR! Central Coast Waterproofing set to provide resealing and repair services throughout California!

"You are free to purchase Mer-Ko products and provide your customers with exceptional installation and service at any time!"

Direct from Mer-Ko's Susan Foster came the good news yesterday that the Deck Expert's company Central Coast Waterproofing became one of Mer-Ko's authorized applicators!

That's right, now we are able to offer HOA's and other clients factory approved applicators to maintain, reseal and repair their existing decks, along with offering new installation services of the decking and waterproofing lines.

"Central Coast Waterproofing will specifically offer resealing and repair services to HOA's with Mer-Ko on them to continue their warranties out to the 10 year anniversary at a cost less than the current competition in the market does." said Bill Leys

Mer-Ko customers seeking alternates to their current applicator's resealing pricing should call us at 805-801=2380

Why California should consider Australia's 'Prepare, stay and defend' wildfire policy

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO? No, it's not the Clash singing punk anthems...


Why California should consider Australia's 'Prepare, stay and defend' wildfire policy

By Sarah Yang, Media Relations | 26 February 2009

BERKELEY — Even as debate rages over the safety of Australia's "Prepare, stay and defend, or leave early" policy of wildfire defense, fire researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and in Australia say that the strategy is worth consideration in California and other regions in the United States.

Questions about the policy, which encourages able residents to stay home and actively defend their property from wildfires, are being renewed in the wake of Australia's devastating fires, which began on Feb. 7 and killed 210 people, burned down 1,800 homes and scorched 1,500 square miles of land.

READ THE REST OF Sarah's OPINION PIECE BY CLICKING OUR HEADLINE!

JURY TRIAL RE-SET IN LIFE PAINT vs PAUL KOURY et al

Pictures-Paul Koury in an undated photo.
Document 92. Status Conference


Up at PACER from the 24th is this set of general Civil Minutes on the Life Paint vs. Paul Koury/Pacific Pebbles lawsuit.

The Jury trial has been set for July 21, 2009 at 9 am. A pre-trial conference is set for July 6th.

The 2 subjects were discovery and settlement.

From what I read at PACER, Discovery pertains to more of Fred Benson sitting down on a chair for another 4 hours, as ordered by the court after finding in Koury's favor (wee, one small victory!)

And I hear from sources there's still more to come from Paul Koury sitting down again to get squeezed for more information...

I know I'd be asking about the ICC report and how'd he get it...where he got reports from, what labs did his testing? I'd also ask more about the Sares Regis project and others, probably looking through their records to find jobs that got sold ALX on them, find the distributors and subpoena their records for sales of alx to help tally up Life Paint's profit losses...things like that...wwjld? (what would jesus' lawyer do?)

Good thing there's no rendition on deck coating cases! But I bet you can still turn on the hot glaring lights still right? ...no?

The other item up on the board is settlement discussions; several documents filed allude to there being discussions of settling...

After Life Paint's significant win on the trademark issue last week, it's a pretty certain bet that the pressure would be on Paul Koury to cut a deal and save his skin in my opinion.

Life Paint, in my opinion from my limited "jailhouse lawyer" knowledge of reading too few law books, now has all the marbles in it's corner and could go for a TKO or put a Mike Tyson body shot full flurry on and take everything that there is to be taken. This suit names Koury personally as well as his business....that's a serious deep crevice he's backed against...

It's been admitted that ALX is the "same thing" as Life Deck AL....that's trademark infringement, isn't it?, it's been admitted that Westcoat had to be told to stop using Life Paint's ICC number on it's literature, it's been admitted that there was no new testing (Matt Ranzau depo)done on the ALX system, the thinking is Koury took Life Paint's property (the test results on the AL system) and got ICC-ES to give him an evaluation report (that's a whole 'nother case right there if that is indeed what happened.)So what testing did Paul Koury use? Life Paint's testing? Hmmm, that's stealing and fraud, ain't it Pa?

I think ICC would be forced to cancel the report, if the test results used belong to someone else. Otherwise, what prevents anyone from taking someone's report and test results and say it's the same thing? ICC-ES might have some culpability? I think Life Paint wrote ICC forbidding them to use any such data? I heard Koury did not have the 1 hour test, hence he doesn't have a One Hour Assembly rating.

Also interesting to note that the ALX Westcoat report is subject to reexamination one year from issue, or Nov 08...the old report is still there...I understand ICC charges a steep monthly fee to carry a report until a new is issued.

Is ICC hedging on re-issue? I know they stop by here to read my blog, as does Westcoat (the miracle of Google gives up every visitor in my Google stats)and they know I've been asking them questions...and watching everything carefully.

There's so much possible damages from lost sales of materials and jobs...

What about the use of Life Deck Installation Company? Isn't that stepping on trademark rights?

Or bootlegging products using Life Deck "labels" on them? What liability and damages for that? Lost profits, fraud, you know...

Life Deck probably has a choice right now to make a deal that lets Westcoat continue...maybe thinking getting money from a settlement over time...but that's counter-productive to their own best interests...that would be their money paying them back from their rightful customers maybe?

I say that they need that icy look that made opponents piss their panties when they stepped into the ring with Iron Mike; the one that says, "you be walking outta here on a stretcher tonight."

This industry does not need bad apples floating around at the end of this business cycle...it's this authors opinion that this is nwot the time to be taking much pity here, serious damages have been experienced...wslpd? (what should life paint do?)

What do you think readers?

Quest Is the Store For Flooring, Decking and Waterproofing Contractors...

Last week I was down in the OC working with a buddy doing some epoxy flooring at the Seal Beach navy facility.

We stopped by Quest on N Patt Street, he having rented a shot blaster and the requisite vac and generator from them and needed to pick it up.

Off we went and I did some shopping and browsing while the equipment was put in the truck.

I have to say that the place has what the contractor needs, at a cost way better than Home Depot does for the same things. Need chip brushes and rollers? Plenty of choices, types and sizes. Spiked rollers for rolling into wet epoxy to pop the bubbles that inevitably occur are hard to find, but not here.

Need some new spiked shoes to walk over wet epoxy of into a texture job that needs knocking down? $13.00 gets you a set your choice of spikes or blunted...

Rental equipment from Blastrac sits waiting for your floor prep needs, diamond blades and cups of all sizes, grinders and other hand prep tools, are all here for you under one roof.

Print the coupon and stop on by to say Hello to Dave Ratliff, a long time contractor who has plenty of "trowel time" under his belt, Dennis Chevrier and Erica Bagnall, who is carrying on the family deck coating and waterproofing tradition, she's the daughter of Jay Bagnall, formerly of Galahad. Erica's Uncle is one of the owner's of Pli-Dek. They will all help you out with advice, a hot coffee and a free T_Shirt with your coupon...tell 'em you found it here!

MIRACLE DECK COATING? MFG claims in letter that "structural instability in framing can be corrected with one of their metal lath deck coating products

The Deck Expert has obtained a copy of a letter sent by Poly-Tuff, regarding decks that are/were experiencing cracking issues on them in LA County.

The decks are cracked and some are leaking now...

But apparently, according to the sales manager who wrote the letter, Poly-Tuff's Flexideck P-ML (Metal Lath system can correct "structural instablity in the framing."

What? Is this guy serious? Poly-Tuff's Flexideck system can correct structural instability? If that's the case buddy, you got yourself the miracle decking system that can right many wrongs with little effort or removal of unstable structural framing.

ack...OK, sorry, I fell on the floor laughing to hard....I think I know what he meant to say, but what it says is what it says...


A lesson in the subtleties of proper English usage?

Some One Got Some BAD ACID... Staining job, that is...

Sorry, didn't mean to send you on a time warp back to 69 to that Pink Floyd concert with the bad acid trip you had...
today's bad acid trips for me are now acid staining jobs where someone didn't know what the crap they were doing...like this slab at a Shea home in Nipomo...

I was asked to look at it to see what could be done. Short of a skim coat of polymerized cement after prepping the slab, I guess they could pull the slab and do it over...

Watch out for Bad Acid!

FROM LAS VEGAS I-TEAM-MORE TROUBLE IN HOA PROBE

FROM LAS VEGAS I-TEAM TV Report...click on our headline to read the rest of the article...and
watch the news video,

With a taskforce of FBI Agents and Metro Detectives investigating an alleged scam that may have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars, you might think the chief suspects would lay low or get out of town. That is not the case regarding one very large homeowner association which, in just the past few weeks, saw the same suspects return for another bite of the apple.

Wanda Murray is amazed at the brazen return of the same outfit that has already taken millions of dollars out of the Vistana condo complex. In late December, she says the property manager informed her that $450,000 had disappeared from the homeowner association's bank account -- the last of an $8 million fund set aside to repair construction defects.

"They just went and did it," she said.

To understand who "they" are, think back to late September when a task force of FBI Agents and Metro Detectives fanned out across the valley to serve search warrants at several locations.

At the center of the probe is Silver Lining Construction, owned by Leon Benzer. His office was searched along with that of his close associate, attorney Nancy Quon. The offices of a homeowner association management company called Platinum were also searched.

Lawmen believe that Benzer and others initiated the takeover of homeowner association boards all over town, possibly through rigged elections. The Benzer-dominated boards then voted to file construction defects lawsuits, which often were handed to lawyer Quon who succeeded in landing huge settlements. The lucrative repair work then was given to Benzer's company.

In the case of Vistana, Murray and others say all five members of the board were tied to Benzer.

Funny Cartoon

Well yes, I borrowed this from cartoonist Wiley Miller, creator of "Non Sequitur" a daily cartoon that pokes fun at our foibles...

Click our headline to leave a comment at Wiley's website...

DURADEK ANNOUNCES NEW PRODUCT LAUNCH! New TILEDEK Waterproofing Membrane for Using Under Tile Applications

For Immediate release – New product Intro – February 17, 2009



******Duradek is very pleased to introduce TILEDEK******



‘Tiledek’ is an outdoor anti-fracture roofing membrane designed for outdoor tile decks and roofs. Virtually identical to Duradek Ultra, Tiledek is an approved roofing membrane with a fabric laminated to its topside. The tiles are then bonded securely to the fabric-covered membrane with thinset mortar.



‘Tiledek’ is produced by Duradek, the original waterproofing sheet vinyl that has been solving unique waterproofing problems throughout North America for over 35 years. With the same roofing approvals, the same proven installation techniques, and the same network of professional and trained applicators, ‘Tiledek’ is about to revolutionize the decking and flat roof industry.



Please see www.duradek.com for more details or call 1-866-591-5594

Thanks very much


Jennifer Ogilvie
Marketing Manager
Duradek Ltd.
Toll Free: 866-591-5594 ext.240

ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Court Rules in Life Paint vs. Paul Koury/Pacific Pebbles Case That Defendant "Contracted Away Any Rights" on Life Deck Trademark! Read it all here!

Document 91, the Ruling we've all been awaiting to come out, did on Feb 9th...

Depending on who your rooting for, either get your crying towel out or a bottle of bubbly!

Life Paint wins trademark right dispute...

What's next for Pacific Pebbles/Paul Koury?

Sounds like this is gonna get real interesting now...is that hammer sounds on a coffin I hear coming from somewhere?

Our congrats go out to Life Paint on this monumental decision that everyone has been waiting for!

The entire decision is published below for your reading pleasure...Don't forget to buzz us up!










UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LIFE PAINT COMPANY, a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL KOURY, an individual;
PACIFIC PEBBLES
CORPORATION, a California
corporation,
Defendants.
_________________________________
))))))))))))))
CASE NO. SACV 07-283 AG (MLGx)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues and Claims (“Life Paint
Motion”) filed by Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Life Paint Company (“Plaintiff”). After
considering all papers and arguments submitted, the Court GRANTS the Life Paint Motion.
Also before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Koury Motion”) filed by
Defendants and Counter-Claimants Paul Koury (“Koury”) and Pacific Pebbles Corporation
(“Pacific Pebbles”) (collectively “Defendants”). After considering all papers and arguments
submitted, the Court DENIES the Koury Motion.
Case 8:07-cv-00283-AG-MLG Document 91 Filed 02/09/2009 Page 1 of 13

BACKGROUND
This case centers on a dispute between two business entities over ownership of the trade
name “Life Deck.” The Life Deck trademark relates to a product line of liquid coatings for
wood, stucco, concrete, asphalt, and metal, including waterproofing, stains, texture coatings,
primers, sealers, and paints. (Compl. ¶ 12.)
Defendant Koury, owner of Defendant Pacific Pebbles, contends that he is the senior user
of the Life Deck trademark. According to Koury, he conceived of the Life Deck name and
began manufacturing and selling Life Deck products and installing Life Deck systems for
customers between December 1988 and March 1989. (Koury Motion 1:8-12.) On March 22,
1989, Koury asserts that Pacific Pebbles incorporated the Life Deck trade name and established
the brand. (Koury Motion 2:24-25.) In or around April 1989, Koury claims that he approached
Plaintiff to “garner interest in creating a business relationship,” but Plaintiff denied his request.
(Koury Motion 1:12-14.) Plaintiff then applied for the Life Deck trademark in 1993. On
February 28, 1995, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) granted federal
registration of the mark to Plaintiff, assigning registration number 1,881,085. Koury asserts that
the USPTO granted registration to Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s false statement that “to the best
of [his] knowledge and belief,” no other “person, firm, corporation, or association” had the right
to use the Life Deck mark, or one similar enough to cause confusion, in commerce. (Koury
Motion 4:14-24.)
Between 1993 and 2003, the parties entered into three separate written agreements
regarding use and ownership of the Life Deck trademark. The first agreement was signed by the
parties on October 5 and 6, 1995, with an effective date of February 1, 1995 (the “1995
Agreement”). That agreement, entitled “Life Deck Sales Consultant Agreement for Paul
Koury,” states, in part: “Life Paint Company further agrees to share the Life Deck trademark,
(with Paul Koury).” (Compl. Ex. C (emphasis in original).) Defendants contend that notes taken
during the negotiation of the agreements in June stated: “Life Paint company further agrees to
share the Life Deck trademark put into first use by Pacific Pebbles, Inc. in 1989 . . . .” (Koury
Case 8:07-cv-00283-AG-MLG Document 91 Filed 02/09/2009 Page 2 of 13

Motion 5:11-14.) In February 2000, Koury filed a Petition for Cancellation of Life Paint’s Life
Deck trademark to preclude the registration from achieving incontestable status. (Koury Motion
6:1-3.) The parties then entered into settlement negotiations that led to two more written
agreements. The first of those two agreements was signed by the parties on October 23 and
November 7, 2001 (the “2001 Agreement”). That agreement stated, in relevant part, that
Plaintiff would “maintain sole ownership of the ‘Life Deck’ trademark.” (Compl. Ex. D.) It
also stated that Plaintiff, “due to its ownership of the ‘Life Deck’ trademark,” would have the
responsibility and privilege to name and/or include any product as a Life Deck product or system
and would oversee quality control for those products or systems. (Id.) Koury signed that
agreement noting that his signature was “subject to items 1-4 in paragraph (last) being resolved.”
(Id.) Those items were: (1) commission and overrides; (2) distribution, marketing, and sales; (3)
quality control; and (4) products and systems development. (Id.) On March 11, 2003, the
parties signed a final agreement resolving all four of those issues (the “2003 Agreement”).
(Compl. Ex. E.) That agreement concluded with a statement that, to the best of the parties’
knowledge, past business activities had been conducted in compliance with the agreement and
that “each signing below shall hold the others harmless from legal reprisal from past business
activities related to their business agreements with each other.” (Id.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on March 7, 2007, states nine claims against Defendants,
numbered as follows: (1) violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (2) unfair business
practices, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (3) unfair business practices, in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; (4) breach of written contract; (5) breach of
written contract; (6) breach of written contract; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) unfair
competition; and (9) breach of oral contract. Defendants’ Counterclaim, filed on April 18, 2007,
states twelve claims against Plaintiff, numbered as follows: (1) cancellation of federal
registration; (2) unfair competition and trade name infringement; (3) common law trademark and
service mark infringement; (4) copyright infringement; (5) violation of the Lanham Act; (6)
unfair business practices, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (7) unfair
business practices, in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; (8) breach of
Case 8:07-cv-00283-AG-MLG Document 91 Filed 02/09/2009 Page 3 of 13

contract; (9) intentional interference with economic relations; (10) negligent interference with
economic relations; (11) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (12) negligent
interference with contractual relations. Defendants’ counterclaims are largely based on
Plaintiff’s use of the Life Deck mark as well as Plaintiff’s use of a “TEXTURE-CRETE”
trademark.
Both parties now move the Court for a judicial determination of ownership of the Life
Deck trademark. Plaintiff also moves for summary adjudication of Defendants’ first, second,
third, fifth, sixth, and seventh counterclaims. Defendants move for partial summary judgment of
Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh claims as well as Defendants’ first counterclaim .
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only where the record, read in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, indicates that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . .
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Material facts are those necessary to the
proof or defense of a claim, and are determined by reference to substantive law. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A factual issue is genuine “if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248. In
deciding a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed,
and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255.
The burden initially is on the moving party to demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If, and only if, the moving party meets its burden,
then the non-moving party must produce enough evidence to rebut the moving party’s claim and
create a genuine issue of material fact. See id. at 322-23. If the non-moving party meets this
burden, then the motion will be denied. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Co., Inc., 210
F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000).
Case 8:07-cv-00283-AG-MLG Document 91 Filed 02/09/2009 Page 4 of 13

ANALYSIS
Both parties seek judicial determination of ownership of the Life Deck trademark.
Plaintiff then moves for summary adjudication of Defendants’ counterclaims for cancellation of
Plaintiff’s federal registration of the Life Deck mark, unfair competition and trade name
infringement, common law trademark and service mark infringement, violation of the Lanham
Act, unfair business practices under § 17200, and unfair business practices under § 17500.
Defendants move for partial summary judgment of Plaintiff’s claims for breach of written
contract and fiduciary duty as well as Defendants’ own counterclaim for cancellation of the
federal registration of the Life Deck mark.
The Court first turns to a determination of which party owns the Life Deck trademark.
The Court then addresses each party’s motion separately.
1. OWNERSHIP OF THE LIFE DECK TRADEMARK
Each party claims ownership of the Life Deck trademark. Defendants argue that because
Pacific Pebbles is the senior user of the Life Deck mark, Defendants are entitled to a judicial
determination that they own the mark. Plaintiff argues that even if Pacific Pebbles was the
senior user of the mark, Defendants contracted away any rights they had in the Life Deck
trademark. The Court agrees with Plaintiff. While Koury and Pacific Pebbles may in fact have
been the senior users of the Life Deck trademark, they contracted away any rights they had in the
mark by agreeing in 2003 that Plaintiff would maintain “sole ownership” of the trademark. (See
Compl. Ex. E.)
Defendants first argue that the 2001 and 2003 agreements were not contracts, but merely
“memorializations” of settlement discussions between the parties. The Court disagrees. Under
California law, an enforceable contract requires only: (1) parties capable of contracting; (2) their
consent; (3) a lawful object; and (4) a sufficient cause or consideration. Cal. Civ. Code § 1550.
Here, it is undisputed that the parties were capable of contracting, and both parties consented to
Case 8:07-cv-00283-AG-MLG Document 91 Filed 02/09/2009 Page 5 of 13

the agreements by signing them. While Koury’s consent to the 2001 agreement was “subject to”
resolution of four issues, the 2003 agreement indisputably resolved all four of those issues. The
agreements clearly have a lawful object and are supported by valid consideration. In both
agreements, each party makes numerous promises in exchange for promises from the other party.
The agreements evidence a clear intent from each party to be bound. Both the 2001 and 2003
agreements are valid, enforceable contracts. Defendants’ argument fails.
Defendants next argue that even if the 2001 and 2003 agreements are contracts, they are
not enforceable because of Plaintiff’s “immediate and continued breach of the terms without
curing the breach.” (Koury Motion 19:16-18.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff breached the
2003 agreement by failing to provide sales reports and selling to a company directly within
Pacific Pebbles’ channel of trade. (Koury Motion 20:3-18.) According to Defendants, Plaintiff
failed to cure their breach even after receiving oral and written notice of the breach from Koury.
(Koury Motion 20:18-20.) Defendants thus conclude that the 2003 agreement is “null and void
and cannot be breached.” (Koury Motion 21:8.) The Court disagrees. The mere fact that
Plaintiff may have breached the agreement does not render it “null and void.” As Plaintiff points
out, Defendants continued to perform under the contract long after the alleged breach, thereby
accepting performance. See Whitney Inv. Co. v. Westview Development Co., 273 Cal.App.2d
594, 603 (1969) (“When the injured party with knowledge of the breach continues to accept
performance from the guilty party, such conduct may constitute a waiver of the breach.”).
Further, as Plaintiff notes, Defendants have stated a counterclaim for breach of contract against
Plaintiff. (Counterclaim ¶¶ 83-87.) By attempting to recover damages for breach of the
contract, Defendants acknowledge the existence and validity of the contract.
Defendants also argue that the 2001 and 2003 agreements are unenforceable because they
were not signed by Fred Benson, one of Plaintiff’s shareholders. But as Plaintiff points out, it is
a well-settled rule of agency that corporate officers have the authority to bind the corporation.
Boteler v. Conway, 13 Cal.App.2d 79, 83 (1936). Defendants do not dispute that the agreements
were signed by Plaintiff’s President, Ron Sibbrel (“Sibbrel”), and Vice President, Michael de la
Vega (“de la Vega”). As officers of the corporation, Sibbrel and de la Vega certainly had the
Case 8:07-cv-00283-AG-MLG Document 91 Filed 02/09/2009 Page 6 of 13

authority to bind Plaintiff to an agreement with Defendants and did just that by signing the 2001
and 2003 agreements. Defendants’ argument fails.

Regardless of which party was the senior user of the Life Deck trademark, Defendants
clearly contracted away any ownership rights they had in the trademark by agreeing that Plaintiff
would maintain “sole ownership” of the mark. (See Compl. Ex. E.) The parties’ agreements are
enforceable, and Plaintiff is the sole owner of the Life Deck trademark. Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Adjudication as to ownership of the trademark is thus GRANTED. Defendants’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to ownership of the trademark is DENIED.

DENIED DENIED DENIED, what a word, means so much yet it's so short and succinct...

it's gonna be a great weekend...sunny and warm with a little judgment in the afternoon...I mean wind.

Crossfield Products MIRACOTE Division Announces Training Schedule for 2009

Miracote has posted it's training schedule for 2009 on it's website, click on our headline for any last minute changes/updates...

Training Schedule - 2009

The information below details the current regional training sessions scheduled for Miracote’s “Training on the Move for Contractors on the Run…” Additional training session will be added throughout the year, so check back often for updated scheduling information.

If you would like to customize a training session to meet your particular business needs, please contact us. The Miracote Training Team is committed to providing hands-on training for the 21st Century that keeps you on the cutting edge of product innovation and creative application techniques.

February 2009


• Where Restoration & Decorative Worlds Meet
  February 19th, 20th, and 21st 2009
  Fee: $250.00 per person
  Alta Paints & Coatings, Inc.
  136 West 3300 South
  Salt Lake City, UT 84115
  Contact:
  Jennifer Leyland
  jennifer@altapaints.com
  801-466-9625
  
  March 2009
  
  
• Where Restoration & Decorative Worlds Meet
  March 5, 6, and 7th, 2009
  Texas Color Crete
  5510 Brewster Street
  San Antonio, TX 78233
  Fee: $250.00 per person (Click for Form)
  Contact: Jeff Slaughter
  sales@texascolorcrete.com
  Tel: 210-650-5455
  Fax: 210-650-5459
  
• Where Restoration & Decorative Worlds Meet
  March 11th, 12th, and 13th, 2009
  Fee: $250.00 per person
  Deco-Crete Supply
  133 N. Kohler Road
  Orrville, OH 44667
  Contact: Jason Geiser
  jason@deco-cretesupply.com
  330-682-5678
  
• Where Restoration & Decorative Worlds Meet
  March 17, 18, 19th, 2009
  Decorative Concrete
  6770 E. Marginal Way South
  Seattle, WA 97108
  Fee: $175.00 per person (Discount for Early Registration; Click For Form)
  info@dcsytemssupport.com
  Tel: 800-938-4148
  April 2009
  
  
• Where Restoration & Decorative Worlds Meet
  April 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 2009
  Fee: $250.00 per person
  Crossfield Products Corp.
  140 Valley Road
  Roselle Park, NJ
  Contact: George Reedy
  georger@cpcmail.net
  410-836-2224
  
• Where Restoration & Decorative Worlds Meet
  April 16, 17 and 18th 2009
  Fee: $250.00 per person
  Bobcat of the Rockies
  7000 E. 56th Avenue
  Commerce City, CO 80022
  Contact:
  Mark Ernst
  marke@bobcatoftherockies.com
  303-288-6603
  
• Where Restoration & Decorative Worlds Meet
  April 29, 30, and May 1st, 2009
  Fee: $250.00 per person
  Decorative Construction Supply
  3820 US Hwy 80 East
  Mesquite, TX 75149
  Contact: Corey Granger
  corey@decorativeconstructionsupply.com
  972-289-1700
  
  
• Postponed Until Further Notice
  Crossfield Products Corp.
  3000 E. Harcourt Street
  Rancho Dominguez, CA 90221
  Fee: $750.00 per person
  Contact: Jodi Hood
  jodih@cpcmail.net
  310-886-9100 x223

LIFE PAINT SETS "HOW TO" CLINIC/LIVE DEMO DATE FOR MARCH

Get your appetite ready for the upcoming "How To" Clinic/Live Demo being held Thursday March 19th from 10am to 2pm and learn all about Life Paint's Life Deck systems-the AL Deck system, MA Coat fiberglass system and their Stamped Concrete and Texture Crete systems.

I went last year and they ahd these guys come in to cook up some Taco's...man oh man, they were good! Worth the drive to Santa Fe Springs alone...

Click on our headline to read Life Paint's website on these systems, click on the pic to enlarge it and read the flyer

American Plywood Association Publishes Technical Notes on FRT Plywood (Fire-Retardant-Treated Plywood

Fire resistant construction is a big part of the building code, and new technologies have given us Plywood that has been treated to be fire retardant.
The APA has just published a Technical Note on the product and the Notes contain some excellent information on this product.

Fire-retardant-treated plywood is pressure impregnated with chemicals to permanently inhibit combustion. This qualifies it for a lower flame-spread rating and smoke developed index, and reduces it's fire-hazard classification. When it is identified as such by a code recof=gnized testing agency label, it is rated on parity with non combustible construction by many insurance rating bureaus.

This type of fire retardant material may well find it's way into our industry...I wonder if it has the same qualities as regular plywood does?

So click our headline to download and read this APA produced Technical Note and learn more about this new product. It could be that you'll find it someday on one of your next jobs if your a contractor...

Please Take a Moment for one Minute of Silence for the Victims of Australia's Wildfires...

Just like California and the west, Australia is a land of little rain.

As I'm sure you've heard, many people have perished in the most horrible of ways from arsonists lighting fires that have become monsters of flames that are incinerating everything that burns.

Please take a minute of silence to say a prayer or however you wish to think of those who have lost their lives down under...God knows it could be our home or our life's next time that is in danger...may the person or persons who may be responsible be caught and brought to justice.

DECK EXPERT INTRODUCES HIS NEW FORUM WEBSITE! Now you can get on a discussion board and discuss deck coatings, post questions, review answers...

Yes it's true, the Deck Expert seeks to provide new areas to allow readers and interested members of the public post their questions, issues, problems etc.

Deck Expert has created his now free forum to everyone who registers.

Administrators wanted-moderators I mean...to take their company/product forum over and discuss any posts that might be made.

get in touch with me asap if you want to moderate...

WHY USE PLYWOOD WHEN OSB IS CHEAPER? Read this piece and you'll see why Fire Rated Construction maybe uses plywood for a reason...

Hey, I always want plywood on my decks for sheathing...and a lot of guys bitch about it, cause plywood costs more. But deck coating manufacturers stipulate plywood for a reason, and here's a good enough one for me...

when it comes to fire, using the best fire resistant materials I can is my goal.

Click the headline to read about other construction methods and materials that may cause fire to spread or make it more difficult to fight.

They All Fall Down

Critical Fireground Factors for New Residential Construction

by John Brunacini

The majority of all new residential construction uses lightweight construction materials. Let’s take a look at the different features of this construction type that directly effect the decision making process of firefighting strategy and tactics at these structures.

Oriented Strand Board (OSB) is now the construction industry’s predominate sheeting material; it has replaced plywood for roof decking, flooring decks and siding. OSB is assembled by gluing together small pieces of wood and wood chips at extreme pressures. After curing, they are cut into shapes (usually 4' x 8' sheets measuring 3/8" to ½" thick). OSB is structurally sound, cheaper and more readily available than plywood. But like a lightweight truss, it also fails much faster under fire conditions. The glues and resins that hold OSB together start to decompose rapidly at relatively low temperatures (+300°F). These moderate temperatures will decompose the adhesives holding the wood chips together, and the sheet will quickly delaminate (fall apart). The released glue and resin vapors are also very flammable and contribute to the combustion process. This phenomenon is causing faster attic flash-over times and quicker roof failure times once the fire has entered into the truss space.

Good Video From Peter in Melbourne! Balcony Waterproofing Australia Style

I saw this video while surfing You Tube and it's a very good clip on waterproofing a balcony for a tile finish. It's production is great, it shows us clearly the steps and methods used (there's a lot) and shows the final tile deck. A nice job and a good educational film that maybe one of us will see something that would work better here? Or vice versa, an exchange of ideas on deck waterproofing from voices all over the globe...imagine the possibilities.

Click and watch it, click our headline to go to You Tube to see all of Peter's videos.

Tell em G'day for us...

From the RENO GAZETTE JOURNAL- Nevada contractors want defect laws changed

This article on construction defect's repair process in Nevada came out yesterday...

Homeowners, contractors and subcontractors gave state lawmakers varying viewpoints on Nevada's law governing construction defects, though most were of the opinion that the law needs to be adjusted.

"I think there is a little tweaking that is going to have to be done," said state Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that received the testimony during a hearing about construction defect laws and Chapter 40 of state law.

"The Chapter 40 process is slow, expensive and isn't working," said Josh Griffin, representing the MGM Mirage that is building a

2,392-unit residential project in Las Vegas.

Steve Hill, chairman of the Construction Coalition, agreed.

"Chapter 40 is such a convoluted process; it does more harm than good," he said.

Three homeowners who used the Chapter 40 process to have construction defects fixed on their properties said it is invaluable.

David Babel of Reno said he received no satisfaction from the builder of his home despite phone calls and face-to-face meetings but was able to get his home fixed with the Chapter 40 process.

Read the rest of the article by clicking on our headline!

RCI Offers 2009 California Energy Code Update-Low and Steep Sloped Roofing and The Building Envelope

So Cal Chapter of RCI, Inc.

2009 California Energy Code Update Low and Steep-Sloped Roofing and the Building Envelope Now offered in two locations: SAN FRANCISCO, CA Monday, March 2, 200 Pacific Energy Center 851 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 973-2277 SAN DIEGO, CA Tuesday, March 3, 2009 Holiday Inn on the Bay 1355 N. Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 877-8920 Roofing, Waterproofing and the Building Envelope The focus of this portion of the program will be on new requirements involving the inclusion of roofing for residential and certain institutional entities and the new requirements for sloped roofing, shingles, tiles and metal panels. Both of these areas where previously excluded from Title 24 Cool Roof requirements. The last topic for Title 24 Cool Roofs, will be the 3 year progress updates on how the reflectivity of Cool Roofs has played out in the field and how it will impact any revised requirements. Speakers: John A. Goveia, President of Pacific Building Consultants, Inc. and Philip D. Dregger PE RRC FRCI, President of Technical Roof Services, Inc. This program will also provide an overview the current '05 T-24 California Energy Efficiency Standards impacting nonresidential buildings with '09 energy code changes to watch for that impact a nonresidential building's envelope, particularly energy issues for both new and existing roofs. The seminar will include a current standards overview of relative building energy impacts for a generic building's roof R-value options and "Cool" roof initial reflectance and initial emittance specifications, and how those overall building energy budget impacts might effect how proactively you approach building energy features upgrade options with roofing performance improvements. Speaker: Ken Miller, President, Energy Compliance Systems, Inc. Continuing Education Credits RCI Continuing Educational Hours (CEHs) from RCI 5 AIA Learning Units (LUs) from the American Institute of Architects 5 Registration and Location Registration Time: 12:30 pm Program: 1 pm to 7 pm An afternoon break and dinner will be provided Registration Fees: RCI / AIA / CREIA / WESTCON / SDRCA Member: $120 Non-Member: $145 Parking: Pacific Energy Center: Holiday Inn on the Bay: Self $10 Valet $17 Location: MARCH 2, 2009 Pacific Energy Center 851 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 973-2277 MARCH 3, 2009 Holiday Inn on the Bay 1355 N. Harbor Drive San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 877-8920 To register, go to www.RCISoCalChapter.org Questions call: 866/914-4RCI

RIP Millard Fuller, Habitat For Humanity Founder

From a Yahoo news feed, Millard Fuller the founder of Habitat for Humanity passed away.

I have done work for Habitat, they are a worthy and noble organization. The world has lost a wonderful person.

Read the whole story by clicking on our headline.

Strange Case of Deja Vu on these websites...

Browsing browsing, found this case of double vision at these two websites of waterproofing contractors down south...

http://deckmastersinc.com/

http://prestigedecking.com/index.htm

someone either got ripped off, or is one company fronting as two? We asked Deck Masters Inc and we asked Prestige Decking.

I could find a license at CSLB for Deck masters, but nothing under Prestige Decking.

Also, if you do have a license, I believe one must post that number on any form of advertising, including the Web.

Deck Expert's Posts at Westcoat's ALX Forum Leads the Pack as The Most Read Posts

Wandering around the web this am, I stopped by at Westcoat's Forum pages. At their ALX forum area, not much in the way of posting has occurred in the recent past. Looking at their stats column though, I see my posts on the ICC issue and the differences between al from Life Paint and ALX from Westcoat etc. lead the way in being the most read posts.

One post has actually gotten a five star rating from someone...

Of course, no reply from Westcoat on these questions, although hopefully some are asking Westcoat questions after reading my posts...

We stll await these answers and are working dilgently to dig up the info to bring to the public.

Another deck coating case settled in favor of HOA

From Marc Alexander & William M. Hensley 's www.calattorneysfees.com website;

Homeowner sued HOA in unlimited jurisdiction superior court over an assessment for maintenance/repair work done on homeowner’s balcony. In Gabriel v. Canyon Haven Homeowners Assn., Case No. D052178 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2009) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a $1,575 judgment against homeowner and an award of attorney’s fees/costs of over $18,500 ($17,923.50 of which were fees).

You have got to read this case on a balcony maintenance issue that just got settled recently!

What a fascinating case and great insight into the world of HOA's. I was a CAI certified manager of HOA's some years ago, before becoming a deck waterproofing contractor and consultant.

I've always maintained that waterproof decks are first a roof (protecting space below that was intended to be kept dry and free of moisture intrusion) and then secondly a deck one can walk on.

HOA's CC&R's usually put the onus of maintaining, repairing and replacing the roofs on the Association. It should be the same with decks in all cases. Asking owners to maintain the deck attached to their unit is simply asking for trouble; they are almost always left unmaintained. I see it happen in my job everyday. Case in point, the claim that 18 decks at this Assoc were in similar condition.

Why did the HOA take so long to try to make the owner maintain their deck? Deck coatings, depending on the manufacturer/type, typically need to be resealed every 1-3 years.

It doesn't sound like a large balcony, judging from the relatively small cost of replacing the waterproofing membrane.

As a contractor, I would have to charge around $600 at least to cover my costs and time to reseal this one balcony.

As a single owner, try to get a deck contractor to come out and clean and reseal your ONE little deck-you'll probably find that is pretty futile.

So why so much for one deck? My time to come inspect the deck and write a contract/proposal for the work. Office personnel time to check the contract, schedule the work, write a pre-lien notice that says is we don't get paid...we can lien your home, 2 workers to set up and send out with a truck and the materials/supplies needed for the work, drive to the home, set up and protect the work area, pressure wash and clean, and then reseal the deck. Wait time while the deck is drying, I pay them by the hour.

Now if I had 18 decks to do at once, the costs to do all of them at once would be greatly reduced, as we can take advantage of production work where we are not standing around watching paint dry-we are moving to another deck to pressure wash it, then to another, then we come back and start repairs/resealing, moving through all of them efficiently. The HOA stays on a regular maintenance schedule, ensuring that the decks are water resistant as intended.

HOA's mistake it sounds like was assigning maintenance to owners, owners mistake was fighting it in court with an attorney who is only to happy to bill you.

This is a sad case indeed!

Thanks for the insight, I hope you don't mind that I posted the case/your article onto my blog at