• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure expert witness Bainbridge Georgia high-rise construction expert witness Bainbridge Georgia Medical building expert witness Bainbridge Georgia casino resort expert witness Bainbridge Georgia housing expert witness Bainbridge Georgia concrete tilt-up expert witness Bainbridge Georgia tract home expert witness Bainbridge Georgia condominiums expert witness Bainbridge Georgia custom home expert witness Bainbridge Georgia retail construction expert witness Bainbridge Georgia industrial building expert witness Bainbridge Georgia condominium expert witness Bainbridge Georgia office building expert witness Bainbridge Georgia production housing expert witness Bainbridge Georgia custom homes expert witness Bainbridge Georgia multi family housing expert witness Bainbridge Georgia landscaping construction expert witness Bainbridge Georgia low-income housing expert witness Bainbridge Georgia institutional building expert witness Bainbridge Georgia hospital construction expert witness Bainbridge Georgia Subterranean parking expert witness Bainbridge Georgia structural steel construction expert witness Bainbridge Georgia
    Bainbridge Georgia engineering expert witnessBainbridge Georgia structural engineering expert witnessesBainbridge Georgia construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessBainbridge Georgia civil engineer expert witnessBainbridge Georgia forensic architectBainbridge Georgia multi family design expert witnessBainbridge Georgia reconstruction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Bainbridge, Georgia

    Georgia Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 563 stipulates that prior to filing a claim, a homeowner must give the contractor 30 day written notice detailing the nature of the defect. In response, contractor must provide (within 30 days of receipt) a written reply containing an offer of settlement, requirement of inspection or rejection. The law provides definitions relating to construction; offers immunity from liability for certain conditions; and sets up an alternative dispute resolution process.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Bainbridge Georgia

    No state license for general contracting required. License is required for Air Conditioning, Electrical, and Plumbing trades.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of South GA
    Local # 1194
    PO Box 2950
    Valdosta, GA 31603

    Bainbridge Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Golden Isles Home Builders Association
    Local # 1135
    218 Rose Drive
    Brunswick, GA 31520
    Bainbridge Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Albany & SW GA Inc
    Local # 1108
    PO Box 70424
    Albany, GA 31708

    Bainbridge Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Savannah
    Local # 1188
    7116 Hodgson Memorial Dr
    Savannah, GA 31406

    Bainbridge Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Statesboro Home Builders Association
    Local # 1191
    1223 Merchants Way
    Statesboro, GA 30458
    Bainbridge Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Greater Columbus Home Builders Association
    Local # 1148
    6432 Bradley Park Dr
    Columbus, GA 31904

    Bainbridge Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association Of Warner Robins
    Local # 1196
    PO Box 8297
    Warner Robins, GA 31095

    Bainbridge Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Bainbridge Georgia

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

    How Drones are Speeding Up Construction

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand

    Carolinas Storm Damage Tally Impeded by Lingering Floods

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    Plans Go High Tech

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    The Miller Act Explained

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Ambush Elections are Here—Are You Ready?

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims
    Corporate Profile


    The Bainbridge, Georgia Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Bainbridge, Georgia

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    March 01, 2021 —
    AMCC is pleased to announce Gene Witkin joining Ross Hart’s mediation team effective March 1 this year. Prior to joining our esteemed roster of neutrals, Mr. Witkin was active in complex litigation, insurance disputes, and conflict resolution in numerous different states and venues throughout the United States for more than thirty years. In 2000, he co-founded the law firm Menter & Witkin LLP that focused in large part on risk sharing and funding of large lawsuits, which gave him the diverse experience of representing both plaintiffs and defendants, as well as third-party defendants and insurance companies. Mr. Witkin completed mediator training at National Conflict Resolution Center in 2017, and is an AV Rated “Preeminent Attorney” by Martindale-Hubbell (highest rating) and “Super Lawyer” every year since 2015. He may be contacted at or through AMCC at (800) 645-4874. Reprinted courtesy of Arbitration Mediation Conciliation Center (AMCC) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Does a Broker Forfeit His or Her Commission for Technical Non-Compliance with Department of Real Estate Statutory Requirements?

    September 14, 2020 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, CK Revocable Trust v. My Home Group Real Estate LLC, 2020 WL 4306183 (7/28/2020), the Court of Appeals addressed the distinction between “substantive” and “technical” statutory requirements for real estate broker commission agreements. The Court explained that failure to comply with a substantive requirement would preclude the broker from recovering a commission, but failure to comply with a technical requirement would not. As examples of such substantive requirements, the Court identified the statutory requirement that the broker be licensed at the time the claim for commission arose, and the statutory requirement that the listing agreement be signed by both the broker and the client. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    October 26, 2020 —
    Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at Mr. Vita may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    October 12, 2020 —
    As is often the case in construction defect and other insurance defense litigation, a plaintiff’s claims for relief typically encompass both covered and uncovered damages. Obviously, it is in the insured’s best interests to have as many damages covered by insurance as possible. From the insurer’s perspective and against the backdrop of owing duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds, however, it is generally better to have an allocation of covered vs. non-covered damages. This places the insurer, insured, and insurance retained defense counsel in a difficult position. A recent opinion from U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Rockhill Ins. Co. v. CFI-Global Fisheries Mgmt, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-02760-RM-MJW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35209 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2020), sheds light on the issue, even though some may feel it only further muddies already murky waters. Rockhill involved review of an arbitration proceeding that property-owner, Heirloom I, LLC (“Heirloom”) filed against CFI-Global Fisheries Management (“CFI”). Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill Insurance”) was asked to defend the arbitration as CFI’s professional and general liability insurer. At issue in the arbitration was Heirloom’s claim that CFI defectively designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement that was destroyed by natural processes four times in three years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Likman may be contacted at

    More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building

    February 01, 2021 —
    It has been a while since I “mused” on the green building landscape. While I am a LEED AP and have presented on green (read “sustainable”) building in the past, I am not totally sold on LEED as the be all end all in sustainable construction (the USGBC is a private rating organization that, like the rest of us, is imperfect). I’ve also discussed, both here and elsewhere, the potential risks that come with any new(ish) building process. A recent post by my fellow construction attorney Matt Bouchard (@mattbouchardesq) piqued my interest and started me thinking yet again. Matt’s recent post, entitled Is the U.S. Green Building Council Becoming a Not-So-Jolly Green Giant? outlines recent developments in the sustainable building world (remember “green” is not a specification, but a color), and some of the debate out there among those in the know. From a great infographic on the Top 10 LEED states (Virginia is 3rd) to some sniping from the USGBC (read the LEED folks) toward the GBI (Green Globes) to the fact that LEED is losing some traction as the primary governmental green building certification platform, Matt’s post is worth a read. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Don’t Do this When it Comes to Construction Liens

    September 07, 2020 —
    When it comes to preparing and recording a construction lien, this case is an example of what NOT TO DO! I mean it — this exemplifies what NOT TO DO! It is also a case study of why a party should always work with counsel in preparing a construction lien so that you can avoid the outcome in this case–your lien being deemed fraudulent. In Witters Contracting Company v. West, 2020 WL 4030845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), homeowners hired a contractor to renovate their home under a cost-plus arrangement where the contractor was entitled to a 10% fee on construction costs. The contract also required extra work to be agreed in writing between the owner and contractor. During construction a dispute arose. The contractor texted the owner that it will cancel the permit and record a $100,000 construction lien if the owner did not pay it $30,000. Shortly thereafter, the contractor’s counsel sent the homeowners a demand for $59,706 with back-up documentation. Less than a week later, the contractor recorded a construction lien for $75,000. The owners initiated a lawsuit against the contractor that included a claim for fraudulent lien. The contractor then amended its construction lien for $87,239. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    November 09, 2020 —
    Shutdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted an unprecedented number of business income and business interruption insurance claims. Many claims have resulted in litigation and require judicial intervention to determine whether private insurance carriers owe policyholders indemnification for pandemic related losses. Private insurance carriers that have denied the claims, in large part, argue that they did not underwrite coverage for the pandemic and assert that pandemic coverage is much too unpredictable to underwrite. Private carriers contend that a government-backed insurance program is necessary to mitigate the economic impact resulting from pandemic claims. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted real estate owners and developers. Real estate owners and developers have sustained business income losses in the form of lost rents at commercial properties, service disruption, labor and/ or material shortages, to name a few. Questions about whether the virus caused “direct physical damage,” as well as whether specific “virus exclusions” on policies, have provided hurdles to coverage under existing schemes, click here.Those that have filed lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage under current policy terms are having mixed results, at best. Click here to view SDV’s Litigation Tracker. A predictable source of indemnification for future pandemic-related losses would greatly relieve business disruption and, ultimately, the impact on the economy. However, the question remains, who will pay for such massive losses? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at

    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:
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at