• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home expert witness Dania Beach Florida housing expert witness Dania Beach Florida condominiums expert witness Dania Beach Florida condominium expert witness Dania Beach Florida high-rise construction expert witness Dania Beach Florida multi family housing expert witness Dania Beach Florida retail construction expert witness Dania Beach Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Dania Beach Florida landscaping construction expert witness Dania Beach Florida institutional building expert witness Dania Beach Florida custom homes expert witness Dania Beach Florida industrial building expert witness Dania Beach Florida tract home expert witness Dania Beach Florida hospital construction expert witness Dania Beach Florida structural steel construction expert witness Dania Beach Florida production housing expert witness Dania Beach Florida Medical building expert witness Dania Beach Florida townhome construction expert witness Dania Beach Florida low-income housing expert witness Dania Beach Florida casino resort expert witness Dania Beach Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Dania Beach Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Dania Beach Florida
    Dania Beach Florida architectural expert witnessDania Beach Florida architectural engineering expert witnessDania Beach Florida construction code expert witnessDania Beach Florida expert witness concrete failureDania Beach Florida contractor expert witnessDania Beach Florida construction defect expert witnessDania Beach Florida expert witness roofing
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Dania Beach, 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 Dania Beach 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

    Dania Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Dania Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Dania Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Dania Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Dania Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Dania Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Dania Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Dania Beach Florida

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

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions

    Brooklyn’s Industry City to Get $1 Billion Modernization

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    Number of Occurrences Is On the Agenda at This Year's ICLC Seminar

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

    Canada Housing Surprises Again With July Starts Increase

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    Court Holds That Public Entity Can Unilaterally Replace Subcontractor Under California’s Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

    Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

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

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    2018 Construction Outlook: Mature Expansion, Deceleration in Some Sectors, Continued Growth in Others

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

    U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania
    Corporate Profile


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

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Dania Beach, Florida

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    November 02, 2020 —
    A federal judge has sentenced Jeffrey Veach, former president of an ironworkers' union local in Indiana, to 42 months in federal prison for his role in organizing a 2016 assault by members of his local—using fists and pieces of hardwood—on non-union ironworkers at a school project, the U.S. Dept. of Justice says. Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

    February 15, 2021 —
    Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:
    Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Alaska Supreme Court Finds Insurer Owes No Independent Duty to Injured Party

    December 14, 2020 —
    After the victim incurred injury inflicted by an insured party, the Alaska Supreme Court determined that the insurer owed no duty to the injured party. Martinez v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 2020 Alaska LEXIS 111 (Alaska Sept. 4, 2020). Joshua Martinez lost control of his truck and crashed into Charles Burnett's cabin. The cabin's heating fuel tank was damaged, and fuel drained onto the property and under the cabin. Burnett further alleged he suffered bodily injuries. Martinez was insured by GEICO under an auto policy. Two days after the accident, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) advised GEICO to hire a qualified environmental consultant and crew to clean up the fuel spill. Burnett told GEICO he wanted to do the cleanup himself and offered to do so for $25,000, the approximate amount of the consultant retained by GEICO. DEC did not consider Burnett qualified to handle the cleanup. 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

    Congratulations 2020 DE, MA, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    November 16, 2020 —
    Sixteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, Massachusetts, New York or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eleven received "Rising Star" designations. Lawyers are selected through a process that takes into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year’s list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    The Uncertain Future of the IECC

    January 11, 2021 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday, I welcome an old friend and past Guest Post Friday contributor, Mike Collignon. Mike is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Green Builder® Coalition. He engages in national and state-level advocacy and publishes regular content for Green Builder® Media. Mike is also the Chair of the WERS Development Group and has served as the moderator or host for Green Builder® Media’s Impact Series webinars from 2012–present. The following is an op-ed based on the author’s attendance at public meetings and conversations with inside sources. “I think that you will all agree that we are living in most interesting times.” – Joseph Chamberlain, 1898 2020 was a historic year, both for reasons we currently comprehend and for reasons we may only understand in retrospect. Depending on how an upcoming ICC Board decision goes, it may prove to be the year the IECC met its demise. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

    November 02, 2020 —
    The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer. In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
    The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
    2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    March 01, 2021 —
    In Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”. The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at