BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida condominiums expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida parking structure expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida tract home expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida Medical building expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida high-rise construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida retail construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida production housing expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida townhome construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida structural steel construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida industrial building expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida landscaping construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida low-income housing expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida casino resort expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida housing expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida condominium expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida multi family housing expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida hospital construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida custom home expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida
    Altamonte Springs Florida engineering expert witnessAltamonte Springs Florida construction project management expert witnessAltamonte Springs Florida forensic architectAltamonte Springs Florida architecture expert witnessAltamonte Springs Florida construction project management expert witnessesAltamonte Springs Florida reconstruction expert witnessAltamonte Springs Florida consulting engineers
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Altamonte Springs, Florida

    Florida Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: In Title XXXIII Chapter 558, the Florida Legislature establishes a requirement that homeowners who allege construction defects must first notify the construction professional responsible for the defect and allow them an opportunity to repair the defect before the homeowner canbring suit against the construction professional. The statute, which allows homeowners and associations to file claims against certain types of contractors and others, defines the type of defects that fall under the authority of the legislation and the types of housing covered in thelegislation. Florida sets strict procedures that homeowners must follow in notifying construction professionals of alleged defects. The law also establishes strict timeframes for builders to respond to homeowner claims. Once a builder has inspected the unit, the law allows the builder to offer to repair or settle by paying the owner a sum to cover the cost of repairing the defect. The homeowner has the option of accepting the offer or rejecting the offer and filing suit. Under the statute the courts must abate any homeowner legal action until the homeowner has undertaken the claims process. The law also requires contractors, subcontractors and other covered under the law to notify homeowners of the right to cure process.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Altamonte Springs Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Metro Orlando
    Local # 1040
    544 Mayo Ave
    Maitland, FL 32751

    Altamonte Springs Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Hernando Bldrs Assoc
    Local # 1010
    7391 Sunshine Grove Rd
    Brooksville, FL 34613

    Altamonte Springs Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Lake County
    Local # 1026
    1100 N Joanna Ave
    Tavares, FL 32778

    Altamonte Springs Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Citrus Cty Bldr Assn
    Local # 1006
    1196 S Lecanto Hwy
    Lecanto, FL 34461

    Altamonte Springs Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Marion County Building Industry Association
    Local # 1038
    2635 SE 58th Avenue
    Ocala, FL 34480

    Altamonte Springs Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Volusia Building Industry Association
    Local # 1090
    3520 W International Speedway Blvd
    Daytona Beach, FL 32124

    Altamonte Springs Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders & CA of Brevard
    Local # 1012
    1500 W Eau Gallie Blvd Ste A
    Melbourne, FL 32935

    Altamonte Springs Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Altamonte Springs Florida


    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    #1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

    Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

    Join: Computer Science Meets Construction

    Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

    Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Colorado Introduces Construction Defect Bill for Commuter Communities

    CRH to Buy Building-Products Firm Laurence for $1.3 Billion

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    Mortgage Whistleblower Stands Alone as U.S. Won’t Join Lawsuit

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality
    Corporate Profile

    ALTAMONTE SPRINGS FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Altamonte Springs, Florida Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Altamonte Springs' most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Altamonte Springs, Florida

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    September 09, 2019 —
    In its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention. The first possible amendment will modify the Board’s administrative election blocking charge practice by establishing a regulation-based vote and impound procedure to be used when a party, typically a union facing possible decertification, files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge and, based thereon, seeks to block the holding of an election. The second possible amendment will modify the Board’s current recognition bar case law by codifying prior Board case doctrine and creating a regulation-based requirement of notice of voluntary recognition to affected employees and a 45-day open period within which affected employees may call for an election before that voluntary recognition will be allowed to operate as a bar to employees raising later questions concerning the union’s representative status (QCR). Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Keahn Morris, John Bolesta and James Hays Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Hays may be contacted at jhays@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Denver Airport Terminates P3 Contract For Main Terminal Renovation

    November 12, 2019 —
    In a move that stunned transportation planners around the country, Denver International Airport terminated the contractor team working on a $650-million terminal renovation. The move also ended the airport’s $1.8-billion public-private partnership with Great Hall Partners, a consortium led by Ferrovial Airports, with partners Saunders/JLC Infrastructure. Mark Shaw, Engineering News-Record Mr. Shaw may be contacted at shawm@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    January 27, 2020 —
    The construction industry is fueled by change, which is the only constant in life and construction. Still, continuous change makes compliance with state and federal laws and regulations more difficult. While contractors may thrive on the frantic pace, sometimes it is good to look back and ensure they have an understanding of, and are complying with, the newest regulations and laws. Top 10 Stories Dominating Employment Law in Construction 1. Trio of Federal Joint Employment Rules Expected in December 2019 Joint employment took center stage during the November 20, 2019 release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announced that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. As of January 10, 2020, the EEOC had not done so. 2. NLRB Tightens Union Access to Employer Property In a ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the NLRB ruled that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with an earlier 2019 decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, the NLRB has significantly restricted union access to private employer property. Reprinted courtesy of Micah Dawson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Dawson may be contacted at mdawson@fisherphillips.com

    Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

    December 30, 2019 —
    Congratulations to Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance recovery lawyer, Geoffrey Fehling, on his confirmation by the DC Bar Foundation’s Board of Directors to the organization’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council. As the leading funder of civil legal aid in the District of Columbia, DCBF awards grants to the District’s legal services organizations that provide free civil legal services to low-income and underserved people in the District. Since its inception, DCBF has awarded more than $80 million in grants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    November 12, 2019 —
    In August 2018, the State of Ohio passed legislation making it easier for businesses in Ohio, including the construction industry, to use blockchain technology in business transactions, which can result in significant savings and increased efficiency if used correctly. Specifically, Senate Bill 220 amends the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Ohio Rev. Code. 1306.01, et seq.) and ensures that records (or signatures) secured through blockchain are legally binding. With the enactment of this bill, Ohio has joined several other states to allow their businesses to take advantage of this budding technology. While the implications of this enactment are widespread, the use of “smart contracts” utilizing blockchain technology is particularly helpful in the construction industry to streamline certain processes and increase efficiency. What is Blockchain? While blockchain technology is most commonly associated with cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin), the technology has far greater applications as it can be used to “eliminate the middle-man” in a variety of transactions across a broad spectrum of industries. At its core, blockchain is a decentralized ledger that allows transacting parties to interact directly (i.e., peer-to-peer) in a secure manner. Essentially, the blockchain “ledger” is where users record transactions. These transactions are then verified, viewed, and shared with others in the network. The information is stored across a peer network and allows for approved users to view the data simultaneously. It is often analogized to using GoogleDocs, where multiple people can access and edit the same document simultaneously. While that is an easy comparison, blockchain itself is a bit more complex. Reprinted courtesy of Frederick D. Cruz & Seth Wamelink, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cruz may be contacted at frederick.cruz@tuckerellis.com Mr. Wamelink may be contacted at seth.wamelink@tuckerellis.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Standard of Care

    December 16, 2019 —
    One of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing. Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think? The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Gregory may be contacted at jgregory@grsm.com

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    November 18, 2019 —
    A recent California law will hold homeowners’ associations accountable for the safety of their decks. SB326 now mandates all homeowners' associations to have decks inspected at least once every nine years by an architect or structural engineer to determine whether the decks are safe and waterproof. This law (Civil Code section 5551) follows SB721 which was passed in 2018 and requires a similar inspection every six years for other multifamily dwelling units. Failure to comply can result in paying the enforcement costs of local building agencies. DETAILS ON THE MANDATE: More specifically, the 2019 law requires inspections of wood “decks, balconies, stairways, and their railings” more than six feet off of the ground and designed for human use. Additionally, the engineer or architect must (1) certify that he or she has inspected for safety and waterproofing, and (2) certify the remaining useful life of the system. Further, the inspector must inspect a random sample of enough units to provide 95% confidence that “the results are reflective of the whole.” In other words, in addition to the inspector, the association will have to hire a statistician. The nine-year timetable for inspection is no coincidence. After all, the statute of limitations for construction defects is ten years. In fact, associations are required to give notice to their members before filing a suit against a builder. However, under the new law, the association can delay giving notice to its members “if the association has reason to believe that the statute of limitations will expire.” Also, recent case law held that builders could add requirements to CC&R’s to limit a board’s authority to file lawsuits – i.e. adding a supermajority vote by members. Under SB326, any such provisions are now void. Hence, “supermajority” voting provisions are now invalid. IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION These recent laws are clearly a reaction to the tragic collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkley in 2015 that resulted in the death of six college students. While it is imperative that decks be structurally safe, the requirements of SB326 will fuel more construction defect litigation. Joseph Ferrentino is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Newport Beach office. With 25 years of experience, Joe guides clients through construction law issues, among other areas. For more information on how Joe can help, contact him at joe.ferrentino@ndlf.com ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients’ business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    October 21, 2019 —
    In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019). When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com