BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Blountstown Florida condominium expert witness Blountstown Florida casino resort expert witness Blountstown Florida low-income housing expert witness Blountstown Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Blountstown Florida custom home expert witness Blountstown Florida housing expert witness Blountstown Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Blountstown Florida landscaping construction expert witness Blountstown Florida townhome construction expert witness Blountstown Florida retail construction expert witness Blountstown Florida Medical building expert witness Blountstown Florida structural steel construction expert witness Blountstown Florida multi family housing expert witness Blountstown Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Blountstown Florida high-rise construction expert witness Blountstown Florida institutional building expert witness Blountstown Florida tract home expert witness Blountstown Florida parking structure expert witness Blountstown Florida condominiums expert witness Blountstown Florida industrial building expert witness Blountstown Florida production housing expert witness Blountstown Florida
    Blountstown Florida construction project management expert witnessBlountstown Florida construction claims expert witnessBlountstown Florida construction project management expert witnessesBlountstown Florida stucco expert witnessBlountstown Florida civil engineer expert witnessBlountstown Florida multi family design expert witnessBlountstown Florida civil engineering expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Blountstown, 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 Blountstown Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055

    Blountstown Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Florida Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 1000
    PO Box 1259
    Tallahassee, FL 32302

    Blountstown Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of West Florida
    Local # 1048
    4400 Bayou Blvd Suite 45
    Pensacola, FL 32503

    Blountstown Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of Okaloosa-Walton Cos
    Local # 1056
    1980 Lewis Turner Blvd
    Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547

    Blountstown Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Tallahassee Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1064
    1835 Fiddler Court
    Tallahassee, FL 32308

    Blountstown Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northeast Florida Builders Association
    Local # 1024
    103 Century 21 Dr Ste 100
    Jacksonville, FL 32216

    Blountstown Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Panama City (Fla)
    Local # 1042
    PO Box 979
    Panama City, FL 32402
    Blountstown Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Blountstown Florida


    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy

    Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice

    Coronavirus Is Starting to Slow the Solar Energy Revolution

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    Turmoil Slows Rebuilding of Puerto Rico's Power Grid

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

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

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect

    Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia

    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers
    Corporate Profile

    BLOUNTSTOWN FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Blountstown, Florida Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Blountstown's 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
    Blountstown, Florida

    Insured's Lack of Knowledge of Tenant's Growing Marijuana Means Coverage Afforded for Fire Loss

    August 17, 2020 —
    The California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding a claim for fire loss. Mosley v. Pacific Sec. Ins, Co., 2020 Cal. App LEXIS (Cal. Ct. App, May 26, 2020). The Mosleys rented their property to Pedro Lopez. Six months later, the property was damaged by fire. Lopez had tapped a main power line into the attic to power his energy-intensive marijuana growing operation. The illegal power line caused the fire. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC) insured the property under an HO-3 Standard Homeowners policy. Paragraph E of the policy provided,
      We do not insure for loss resulting from any manufacturing, product or operation, engaged in:
    1. The growing of plants; or
    2. The manufacture, production, operation or processing of chemical, biological, animal or plant materials.
    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

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    September 07, 2020 —
    Despite the ongoing pandemic, states are opening up for business and establishing a new normal. This determination to move forward includes pushing public transportation projects full steam ahead. While this may be good news for certain industries, it may not be for commercial property owners hoping to see a slow down to public projects and avoid a taking of private property. As many grapple with new economic realities, we examine the approaches employed by states in the southeast to manage construction of public projects in this unprecedented time. GEORGIA The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is moving forward with all of its previously funded public projects, including the massive I-285 Top-End Project, designated as a “Major Mobility Project” for the Atlanta metro region. Affecting approximately 260 property owners along I-285 and Georgia Highway 400, environmental review of the project continues. GDOT anticipates a contract let date in 2022 and construction start in 2023. Like ocean liners, these projects don’t turn on a dime. Under the 2015 Transportation Funding Act, the budgeted funds cannot be shifted to other needs or projects due to economic shutdown. Once environmental review is complete, GDOT will approve the final design and move toward acquiring right-of-way from affected property owners. Reprinted courtesy of Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    September 28, 2020 —
    Property insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer. By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    October 19, 2020 —
    Florida Dept. of Transportation investigators continue to assess damage to the Pensacola Bay Bridge, which sustained multiple impacts from two construction barges unmoored by Hurricane Sally’s storm-driven waves on Sept. 15. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    June 01, 2020 —
    It’s like the rematch between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. In the right corner we have the California Taxpayers Action Network. In the left corner, Taber Construction, Inc. The title in contention: Construction of California’s Lease-Leaseback Program and, specifically, whether a construction firm can provide both pre-construction services as well as perform construction or, whether doing so, would be an impermissible conflict of interest under the Lease-Leaseback Law. In their first appellate court match, California Taxpayers Action Network argued that a lease-leaseback arrangement between Taber Construction and the Mount Diablo Unified School District, whereby the District agreed to lease the site to Taber Construction one dollar (which is permissible) and to pay Taber a “guaranteed project cost” of $14,743,395 comprised of “tenant improvement payments” totaling $13,269,057 prior to the District taking delivery of the project (which was the issue in dispute) and six “lease payment amount[s]” of $345,723 plus interest paid in 30-day intervals, violated the Lease-Leaseback Law because the bulk of the payments by the District to Taber Construction occurred during construction rather than during the lease-term which could only “truly” occur after the District took delivery of the project. The 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Taber Construction, and in doing so created an appellate court split with the 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (2015), which held that contractor who received all payments prior to turnover of the project to the district violated the Lease-Leaseback Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

    June 01, 2020 —
    Way back in 2009, I discussed the interaction between taller and taller buildings and sustainable (“green”) building. Back then, the reference was to the construction of skyscrapers in the Middle East and Europe. The initially referenced ENR article was written in the context of an urban retrofit of some of Chicago’s taller buildings to make them more sustainable. Just this week, ENR published another article relating to sustainability and super tall buildings. The gist of the article is that while many see taller (rather than wider) as the trend to meld an urban population explosion with more sustainable building practices, this goal is not an easy one to meet. For one, according to the article, energy performance metrics are hard to obtain, both due to the relative newness of these buildings and the seeming reluctance of certain owners to provide the data. Bob Pratt, a managing director in the Shanghai office of developer Tishman Speyer Properties, is quoted in the article, stating
    Once we have measuring sticks about performance, we will know what to do” to make buildings sustainable.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrissghill@constructionlawva.com

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    September 21, 2020 —
    I discussed several of the statutory changes affecting the construction industry here at Construction Law Musings in the run-up to July 1, 2020. One of those changes, an amendment to Virginia Code Section 43-13, may add another arrow to the collection quiver of subcontractors and suppliers. As part of the previously-linked rundown, I highlighted one of the big additions in 2020, namely the amendment making those pesky clauses that let those up the payment chain from you hold money on “this or any other project” void as against public policy. The other big addition to 43-13 is the change that adds a possible civil cause of action for downstream and unpaid subcontractors and suppliers in the event that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor are not first used to pay their downstream contractors and suppliers. Prior to July 1, 2020, this statute provided criminal penalties for such behavior but did not contain the possibility of a civil penalty. The operative language for the change is as follows:
    The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director, or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure for any other purpose than paying such amounts due on the project shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    June 08, 2020 —
    On May 18, 2020, AB 828 was amended and is currently on its second reading in the Senate Rules Committee. This legislation proposes a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and unlawful detainers while Governor Newsom's COVID-19 emergency order is in effect. In addition to the moratorium, AB 828 also required landlords to reduce rent by 25% under certain circumstances. AB 828 was amended to remove the provision that required landlords to reduce rent by 25% for 12 months. The new provision requires landlords to allow tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenants to start paying rent the month following the end of the emergency order. Tenants must timely pay monthly rent plus 10% of any rent due and owing when the emergency order ended. Under AB 828, a tenant may stipulate to the entry of an order in response to a residential unlawful detainer action filed by the landlord. Upon a hearing, the court determines if the tenant's inability to pay rent is the result of increased expenses or a reduction in income due to COVID-19. The court must also make a determination that there is no material economic hardship for the landlord. Upon making such determinations, the court will issue an order that permits the tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenant to commence rental payments the month following the end of the COVID-19 emergency order. Tenant's payment would include the monthly rent plus 10% of an unpaid rent during the COVID-19 emergency order, but excludes any late charges or other fees or charges. The tenant would be required to make timely payments, and if tenant fails to do so, after a 48 hour notice from landlord, the landlord can file for an immediate writ of possession in favor of the landlord and money judgment for any unpaid balance, court costs and attorneys' fees. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/. Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of