BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Chipley Florida high-rise construction expert witness Chipley Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Chipley Florida landscaping construction expert witness Chipley Florida institutional building expert witness Chipley Florida housing expert witness Chipley Florida hospital construction expert witness Chipley Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Chipley Florida multi family housing expert witness Chipley Florida structural steel construction expert witness Chipley Florida parking structure expert witness Chipley Florida custom homes expert witness Chipley Florida low-income housing expert witness Chipley Florida industrial building expert witness Chipley Florida production housing expert witness Chipley Florida custom home expert witness Chipley Florida casino resort expert witness Chipley Florida condominium expert witness Chipley Florida retail construction expert witness Chipley Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Chipley Florida office building expert witness Chipley Florida tract home expert witness Chipley Florida
    Chipley Florida construction expert testimonyChipley Florida expert witness concrete failureChipley Florida concrete expert witnessChipley Florida expert witness roofingChipley Florida architect expert witnessChipley Florida building code compliance expert witnessChipley Florida engineering consultant
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Chipley, 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 Chipley Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tri-County Home Builders
    Local # 1073
    PO Box 420
    Marianna, FL 32447

    Chipley Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Chipley Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Chipley Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Chipley Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Chipley Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055

    Chipley Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Chipley Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Chipley Florida


    Chicago Makes First Major Update to City's Building Code in 70 Years

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

    Europe’s Satellites Could Help Catch the Next Climate Disaster

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Hydrogen—A Key Element in the EU’s Green Planning

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

    Renovate or Demolish Milwaukee’s Historic City Hall?

    Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

    Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Toddler Crashes through Window, Falls to his Death

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    Hurricane Harvey: Understanding the Insurance Aspects, Immediate Actions for Risk Managers

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability
    Corporate Profile

    CHIPLEY FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    January 04, 2021 —
    Damage to a building caused by the break of a water pipe was not a collapse under the policy. Naabani Twin Stars v. Travelers Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196443 (D. N. M. Oct. 22, 2020). An underground water line ruptured on plaintiffs property This caused a collapse under the adjacent parking lot, which in turn caused land beneath the building go change positions and damage the building. A geotechnical consultant concluded that a material change in the site conditions occurred as a direct result of the rupture of the water pipe in the parking lot, and that those changes directly affected the settlement of the building. Travelers denied coverage for the damage. Travelers concluded that the building settlement was the result of subsurface movement, which invoked the earth movement exclusion. Travelers inspection concluded that the building was not in a state of collapse. The policy defined collapse as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or structure, or any part of a building or structure, with the result that the building, or part of the building, cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." 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

    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

    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

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    November 16, 2020 —
    Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rick Barry made his mark on the world of college and professional basketball. He was a skilled small forward who averaged 37.4 points per game during his senior year at the University of Miami, and he was the second overall pick in the 1965 NBA draft. But he’s best remembered as a prolific free-throw shooter: he led the NBA in free-throw percentage for several consecutive years. When he retired in 1980, his free-throw percentage (.900) was the highest in NBA history. So what was the secret to his success? He did things a little bit differently. While the vast majority of basketball players shoot overhand free throws, Barry was famous for his unorthodox underhanded shots. This technique was not only incredibly effective, but it also set him apart as a player and contributed to his popularity. Construction companies can learn a lot from Barry’s strategy of doing things a little bit differently to achieve success. Most companies don’t need to worry about their employees’ free-throw techniques. But all of them need to set themselves apart from their competition and establish strong reputations in today’s highly competitive market. Reprinted courtesy of Charlie Kimmel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    November 30, 2020 —
    Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. In Prav Lodging, the facts were a bit unusual. The day after the mechanic’s lien was recorded by Synchronized Construction Services, Inc. (“Synchronized”) the construction manager, Paris Development Group, the construction manager and de facto general contractor, went out of business. Despite this fact, and after the lien was bonded off, Synchronized sued to enforce the lien and for breach of contract against Paris. The wrinkle here is that Synchronized was unable to serve several defendants, among them Paris, within one year of filing suit as required by Virginia statute. In the Circuit Court, the financing bank moved to dismiss the suit for failure to serve necessary parties. The Circuit Court dismissed the breach of contract count but refused to dismiss the mechanic’s lien count on this basis. 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

    A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound

    January 25, 2021 —
    Here are some significant environmental and regulatory rulings and administrative actions from December 2020. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Texas v. New Mexico On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a water rights controversy involving sharing the water of the Pecos River. The 1949 Pecos River Compact provides for the equitable apportionment of the use of the Pecos River’s water by New Mexico and Texas, and a “River Master’s Manual,” approved by the Court in 1988, implements the Compact. These are very dry areas, and access to this water is very important. In 2014, a rare tropical storm drenched the Pecos River Basin, and Texas asked New Mexico to temporarily store the water that would otherwise flow into Texas. A few months later, New Mexico released the water to Texas, but the quantity was reduced because some of the water held by New Mexico had evaporated. The River Master awarded a delivery credit to New Mexico, and after Texas objected, Texas “in response” filed the Original Jurisdiction of the Court, suing New Mexico and seeking a review of the River Master’s determination. The Court held for New Mexico, deciding that this dispute was subject to and resolved by the Manual. This case is important because it highlights the high value the states place on the equitable apportionment of water that flows through different states. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    December 21, 2020 —
    The global COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world forever, disrupting many industries, as well as creating unprecedented challenges that threaten many businesses. The construction industry is no different. Projects throughout the country have been adversely affected by unplanned work stoppages, delays, disruptions to the supply chain, price escalations and other unanticipated events. It is critical that owners, developers, contractors and suppliers learn from their experiences over the past year and account for the COVID-19 pandemic when drafting and negotiating contracts for their projects. First and foremost, parties should clearly define their rights and responsibilities to properly manage risks due to COVID-19 and its impacts. COVID-19 and other key related terms should be defined, relying on the CDC and state governments for guidance, to eliminate any uncertainties. The contract should also identify executive orders, guidelines and regulations that have been issued concerning COVID-19 by states, municipalities and other authorities that have jurisdiction where the project is located. Reprinted courtesy of Frederick E. Hedberg, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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