BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida casino resort expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida institutional building expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida condominiums expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida production housing expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida office building expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida hospital construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida high-rise construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida condominium expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida parking structure expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida custom home expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida landscaping construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida tract home expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida housing expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida townhome construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida retail construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida Medical building expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida industrial building expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida custom homes expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida multi family housing expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida structural steel construction expert witness Altamonte Springs Florida
    Altamonte Springs Florida architectural engineering expert witnessAltamonte Springs Florida construction expert witness consultantAltamonte Springs Florida consulting general contractorAltamonte Springs Florida hospital construction expert witnessAltamonte Springs Florida construction expert witnessesAltamonte Springs Florida window expert witnessAltamonte Springs Florida construction claims expert witness
    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


    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    Why Clinton and Trump’s Infrastructure Plans Leave Us Wanting More

    Here's How Much You Can Make by Renting Out Your Home

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

    Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    New Report Reveals Heavy Civil Construction Less Impacted by COVID-19 Than Commercial Construction

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

    Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?
    Corporate Profile

    ALTAMONTE SPRINGS FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Altamonte Springs, Florida Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Altamonte Springs' most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Altamonte Springs, Florida

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    October 05, 2020 —
    The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in pending COVID-19 business interruption claims. In re COVID-19 Business interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 144446 (Aug. 12, 2020). Plaintiff policy holders sought consolidation, contending their policies provided coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. The Panel considered 15 actions on the pending motions, but had notice of 263 related actions. Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or sought to be excluded from any MDL. Some argued the Panel should centralize the coverage actions on a state-by-state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis. The Panel did not accept consolidation of all cases. There was little potential for common discovery across the litigation because there was no common defendant as the actions involved either a single insurer or insurer-group. The various cases involved different insurance policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses in different industries located in different states. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    February 08, 2021 —
    Thirteen Traub Lieberman attorneys have been named 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley magazine. The honored attorneys represent the firm's Hawthorne New York office and six practice areas. Hudson Valley magazine uses online peer-voting and an internet search process to select outstanding lawyers from more than 30 practice areas, who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. "We are very proud of all of our attorneys for being recognized as among the top lawyers in the Hudson Valley,” said Partner and Vice-Chair Lisa Shrewsberry. Related Attorneys: Sara Kiridly, Mario Castellitto, Colleen E. Hastie, Timothy G. McNamara, Robert S. Nobel, Richard J. Rogers, Adam Krauss, Taylor C. Eagan, Stephen D. Straus, Lisa L. Shrewsberry, Lisa M. Rolle, Jonathan R. Harwood, Hillary J. Raimondi Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

    Rebuilding the West: Construction Considerations After the Smoke Clears

    December 21, 2020 —
    Wildfires have always been a part of life in the western United States, but, in recent years, the frequency and size of wildfires have become staggering. Oregon, Washington, and—in particular—California face drier conditions, making wildfire season longer and more intense. In these states, among others, prescribed burns (designed to reduce wildfire ignition sources and spreading potential) have been limited or cancelled altogether as the air pollution emitted by these burns may worsen the impact of COVID-19, a respiratory illness in its essence, as noted recently by Science magazine. These circumstances, further compounded by the severe shortage of housing, have created a “perfect storm” in California, which has seen new and denser construction deeper within wildfire-prone areas, prompting a number of key legislative proposals that will impact the rebuilding process after the smoke clears. The infamous 2018 Camp Fire in northern California made international headlines for decimating the town of Paradise. While the cause of the Camp Fire was determined to be faulty electrical transmission equipment, unusually dry conditions allowed the fire to spread to just over 150,000 acres, and the fire took 17 days to contain. Then, five of the 20 largest wildfires in California history occurred during the 2020 wildfire season, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). The Camp Fire was eclipsed by the August 2020 Complex Fire, which is the largest wildfire ever recorded in the state, growing to just over one million acres in size until it was finally contained on Nov. 15. Legislative Response The Camp Fire and other 2018 wildfires displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes throughout California. The unprecedented scale of both the 2018 and the 2020 wildfire seasons in California has spurred legislators in Sacramento to draft a number of important bills that will undoubtedly impact rebuilding efforts. California AB 38 was prompted by the 2018 California wildfire season and was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2019. It requires the state fire marshal, the Office of Emergency Services, and Cal Fire to work together to develop and administer a comprehensive wildfire mitigation program, including "cost-effective structure hardening and retrofitting to create fire-resistant homes, businesses, and public buildings." Unfortunately, the well-intentioned program has yet to be funded, and may be relying on federal hazard funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a future date. In light of the crippling economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal funding is likely the only viable source for this important item of legislation. California SB 182 would enact new building regulations in high fire-risk areas (as determined by the state fire marshal), including new standards for fire-resistive construction, evacuation routes, defensible space, and available water and firefighting resources. It would also prohibit municipalities from approving new construction in high fire-risk areas unless wildfire reduction standards are satisfied. In effect, the bill would discourage new construction in high fire-risk areas. After passing through both legislative houses, Newsom vetoed the bill, citing its negative impact on the state's strained supply of affordable housing. However, the bill is likely to be revisited in the 2020-2021 legislative session. California AB 1516 is a comprehensive bill that would:
    • Create new defensible-space requirements for both new and existing construction in high fire-risk areas.
    • Create a grant-assistance program for fire-prevention education, inspections, and technical assistance.
    • Direct Cal Fire to develop vegetation management recommendations to minimize flammability.
    Additionally, the bill would allow insurers providing course of construction coverage for a project to request, from the owner, municipal certification that the structure to be built complies with existing and new building standards. Newsom vetoed this bill, cautioning that a "one size fits all" approach to wildfire management may not be appropriate, given that each individual community's needs differ. California AB 2380 focuses on the development of standards and regulations for a relatively new and growing phenomenon: the rising use of private firefighting personnel, particularly by wealthy homeowners. Several prominent and well-known carriers offer homeowners-insurance policies that provide for private firefighting personnel, as well as preventative services (wildfire hazard inspections and clearing defensible space), and expected post-incident services (clean up and removal of fire retardant and similar substances). AB 2380 was signed into law by Newsom at the tail end of the 2018 wildfire season, and it now requires Cal Fire, the governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the board of directors of the FIRESCOPE Program (designed to coordinate firefighting resources among different agencies) to develop standards and regulations for privately contracted fire fighters. Housing Shortage and New Construction These legislative efforts are underscored by the worsening housing crisis, which has both strained existing supply and increasingly pushed new construction into areas known as the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). WUI areas are designated as either "interface" or "intermix:” Interface WUI areas have little to no wildland vegetation, but are near large wildlands. By contrast, in intermix WUI areas, structures are mixed with wildland vegetation. A recent study by the U.S. Forest Service found that, as expected, WUI areas are the hardest hit by wildfires. However, the study also found that, contrary to popular belief, wildfires cause greater damage in interface WUI areas than intermix WUI areas- in other words, wildfire damage is greatest where there is little to no wildland vegetation. The study concludes that wildfires in WUI areas are fueled more by human-made fuels as opposed to natural vegetation. These human-made fuels include building materials and landscaping. It may not come as a surprise that a growing body of scientific literature has ascribed more severe and frequent wildfires to climate change. However, what may be less appreciated is the profound impact of building in the WUI. By 2050, an estimated one million new homes are projected to be built in California WUI areas. In light of this, as well as the recognition that wildfire risk is determined, in large part, by construction standards and the fire resistivity of materials as opposed to natural vegetation, California has developed a special building code for WUI areas: Chapter 7A of the California Building Code- Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure. California is one of the few states to have a unique building code for WUI areas, and, in light of the recent wildfires, California officials are developing stricter WUI building standards. The constituents of State Sen. Bill Dodd in Napa County and surrounding areas have faced some of the state's most devastating wildfires. Dodd is at the forefront of significant fire-related legislation, and was responsible for the passage of the Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019, which sets regulations for insurance-claim adjusting in emergencies. Dodd also spearheaded the passage of SB 190, which was enacted in late 2019. The law requires, among other things, the state fire marshal to develop suitable materials and products for building in WUI areas with respect to exterior wall siding and sheathing, exterior windows, doors and skylights, vents, decking, treated lumber and ignition-resistant materials, and roofing materials. The state fire marshal's office found that roofing material is among the most important factors in a structure's fire resistivity, and slate, metal, and tile roofs have the highest fire resistance rating of "A:” As of July 1, 2021, wood-shake roofs will no longer be allowed by the California Fire Code. The state fire marshal also cites non-combustible siding as an important building element. Wildfire-Resistant Construction A recent study prepared by Headwaters Economics and commissioned by the U.S. Forest Service, WR Foundation, and Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety analyzed cost differentials between traditional construction and wildfire-resistive construction as they relate to the four most fire-critical assemblies of a structure: roofs, exterior walls (including windows and doors), decks, and landscaping. Wildfire-resistant roofing, vents, fascia, and gutters were estimated to cost about 27 percent more than traditional components. However, the wildfire-resistant roofing materials feature lower maintenance requirements and longer lifespans. Wildfire-resistant exterior walls were estimated to cost 25 percent less than traditional components, due in large part to the substitution of true wood siding with fiber cement siding. Wildfire-resistant decking involves the use of composite boards, foil-faced bitumen tape on support joists, and the creation of non-combustible space beneath decking. This type of construction was estimated to cost approximately 19 percent more than traditional decking construction. Wildfire-resistant landscaping has the most significant cost difference as compared to traditional landscaping construction, with the former costing about double the latter. Landscaping fabric can minimize the growth of weeds and thus reduce fire hazard, as does the use of rocks instead of mulch. While certain components of fire-resistant construction may have increased costs, the benefits far outweigh these increases: longer life cycles and less maintenance of the components, and, most importantly, greatly increased fire resistivity of the structure itself and thus its life cycle. As construction in WUI areas is expected to grow substantially in the coming years, so too are fire-resistive construction standards and material requirements. These standards and requirements are part and parcel of a more comprehensive and deliberate set of land use planning, vegetation management, and emergency-response regulations and policies that California will develop by necessity to meet the growing demand for housing in WUI areas, and also to rein in the staggering costs of wildfire suppression. Thus, construction in WUI areas, and, to a lesser degree, in non WUI areas, will be subject to more exacting standards in the years to come. As the science of wildfire prevention and suppression advances, so too will the technological innovations that will allow for safer, longer-lasting and ecologically sensitive construction. As in many other fields, California is expected to emerge as a leader in wildfire resistant building and material requirements, and will undoubtedly play a key role in shaping fire policy throughout the United States. Richard Glucksman is a partner, and Ravi Mehta is senior counsel, at Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb. rglucksman@cgdrlaw.com; rmehta@cgdrlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

    February 22, 2021 —
    Artificial intelligence and machine-learning algorithms have struggled to make sense of chaotic construction jobsites, but recent years have seen industry firms build the vast data lakes and analytics systems necessary for these machines to provide useful advice on how to plan, schedule and execute projects. In some cases, these AI advisors have become a standard part of some firms’ project delivery methods. But it’s still a challenge to convince construction professionals to listen to these AI advisors, and there are emerging questions of how risk will be allocated once algorithm-driven decisions start to steer projects. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    November 02, 2020 —
    In Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020), the Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether unintentionally faulty subcontractor work that damages an insured’s work product constitutes an “accident” under a commercial general liability insurance policy. In aligning itself with a growing number of jurisdictions, the Michigan Supreme Court answered, “yes.” In Skanska, a construction manager brought an action against a commercial general liability (CGL) insurer seeking coverage as additional insured for the cost of repairs to correct faulty work performed by its subcontractor in renovation of medical center. In 2009, the construction manager hired MAP to install a steam boiler and related piping for the medical center’s heating system. MAP’s installation included several expansion joints, which it was later discovered, were installed backward. Significant damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system occurred as a result. The construction manager performed the work of repairing and replacing the damaged property to the tune of $1.4 million, and submitted a claim to MAP’s CGL insurer, Amerisure, seeking coverage as an additional insured. Amerisure denied the claim contending that MAP’s defective construction was not a covered “occurrence” within the CGL policy. The policy defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” but did not define the term “accident.” The trial court looked to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hawkeye-Sec. Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369 (1990), which defined “accident” as “…a result which is not anticipated and…takes place without the insured’s foresight or expectation and without design or intentional causation on his part.” But, again citing Hawkeye, the trial court concluded that “[d]efective workmanship, standing alone, is not an occurrence within the meaning of a[ ] general liability insurance contract[;] an occurrence exists where the insured’s faulty work product damages the property of another.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

    March 01, 2021 —
    Most contractors have heard of design-bid-build, design-build, construction manager at risk, and even public private partnerships, various project delivery methods, which, at their heart, focus on balancing the interests of the various parties involved in a construction project, from owners, to design professionals, to contractors. There’s one project delivery method you may not be as familiar with though: Job Order Contracting, also known by its acronym JOC. JOC contracting is a project delivery method used on public works projects and has been authorized to be used by California K-12 school districts, community colleges, CalState universities, and the Judicial Council of California, which, among other things, is responsible for the construction of California state courts. It is intended to be used on smaller, independent, long-horizon project typically involving maintenance, repair and refurbishment. Think periodic maintenance of facilities. JOC contracts are administered by public entities issuing a request for proposals. The public entity then awards a JOC contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The lowest responsible bidder then enters into a JOC contract with the public entity. JOC contracts typically have a duration of one (1) year and are limited to a total construction value of $4.9 million increased annually based on the Consumer Price Index. When entering into a JOC contract, a JOC contractor agrees to perform work at prices set forth in a Construction Task Catalog also known as a unit price book which includes current local labor, material and equipment costs. Unit prices are then adjusted by a “bid adjustment factor” based on the JOC contractor’s bid. When work is needed, the public entity will then issue a job order to the JOC contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    December 29, 2020 —
    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable? In general, the answer to the above questions is “Yes”, but only if you meet the following requirements:
    1. You must only release the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien: There is an important distinction to be made between releasing a mechanics lien and releasing the right to a mechanics lien. Whether you do one or the other will depend on the specific language used in your release. In the case of Santa Clara Land Title Co. v. Nowack and Associates, Inc. (1991) 226 Cal. App.3d, 1558 a “release of mechanics lien” document was recorded TO THE County Recorder’s office which included a statement that the mechanics lien was “fully satisfied, released and discharged”. Based on this language, the court concluded that the mechanics lien claimant had waived its “right” to a further mechanics lien on the same property for the work in question. The court concluded that since the release stated that the claim was “fully satisfied” the right to mechanics lien on the project had forever been waived. The Nowak case can be distinguished from the case of Koudmani v. Ogle Enterprises, Inc., (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1650, where the release of mechanics lien only stated that the mechanics lien was “otherwise released and discharged” and not that it was “satisfied”. Based on the distinction drawn from the two cases, a simple mechanics lien release that only releases the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien should be used. At the following link you will find a proper form to achieve this purpose: https://www.porterlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03PRI-Mechanics-Lien-Release.pdf
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    October 19, 2020 —
    You may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone. In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com