BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Esto Florida custom home expert witness Esto Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Esto Florida structural steel construction expert witness Esto Florida landscaping construction expert witness Esto Florida tract home expert witness Esto Florida multi family housing expert witness Esto Florida Medical building expert witness Esto Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Esto Florida hospital construction expert witness Esto Florida casino resort expert witness Esto Florida low-income housing expert witness Esto Florida parking structure expert witness Esto Florida institutional building expert witness Esto Florida high-rise construction expert witness Esto Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Esto Florida housing expert witness Esto Florida production housing expert witness Esto Florida townhome construction expert witness Esto Florida custom homes expert witness Esto Florida retail construction expert witness Esto Florida condominium expert witness Esto Florida
    Esto Florida building expertEsto Florida building code compliance expert witnessEsto Florida expert witness windowsEsto Florida contractor expert witnessEsto Florida construction defect expert witnessEsto Florida multi family design expert witnessEsto Florida forensic architect
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Esto, 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 Esto 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

    Esto Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Esto Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Esto Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Esto Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Esto Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Esto Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Esto Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Esto Florida


    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

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

    Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor

    Reminder: Always Order a Title Search for Your Mechanic’s Lien

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    Construction Defects Claims Can Be Limited by Contract Says Washington Court

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Happy Thanksgiving from CDJ

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    The Great Skyscraper Comeback Skips North America

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Surged in August to Six-Year High

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier
    Corporate Profile

    ESTO FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Esto, Florida 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
    Esto, Florida

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    December 02, 2019 —
    Here’s an attention-getting statistic: A typical case of fraud in the construction industry has a median loss of $227,000, according to the 2018 Report to the Nations issued by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) on occupational or internal fraud. This report further showed that the construction industry’s median loss is approximately $119,000 higher than the average fraud losses across all industries. Construction companies are most at risk for fraud related to corruption (such as bribes and kickbacks), billing related schemes, expense reimbursements, check tampering and equipment or material theft. This brings up three important questions:
    • What are the fraud schemes affecting your company?
    • How can contractors keep their companies from experiencing these types of fraud?
    • What is the profile of fraudster?
    The threat of fraud can never be wholly removed; however, companies should take steps to identify likely fraud schemes they might face. Below are a number of schemes frequently used to defraud construction companies. Reprinted courtesy of Ken Van Bree, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    September 30, 2019 —
    New technologies are redefining how to plan, build and deliver the full spectrum of construction projects. Automation, software and new processes are changing the construction industry in unprecedented ways, and construction management is evolving along with it. Construction companies are adapting—using innovative tools and resources, joined by more aggressive risk management and decision-making methods. All the while, safety remains at the heart of every successful new build. Envisioning the Modern Job Site Productivity has increased by leaps and bounds as processes have gotten faster and cheaper. Twenty years ago, the industry looked completely different— a $500 million project would have taken four years to deliver; today, it can be done in 29 months. These new projects are becoming incredibly complex as new technologies change the size and scope, giving rise to more specialization and fragmentation. Building projects faster with fewer people requires a whole new level of preparation. This is where advanced planning and advanced work packaging can play a big role—by informing exactly how the material is going to arrive, how it will be staged, how it will be fabricated and how the area can be best managed to deliver the work. Reprinted courtesy of Neil Riddle & Brent Burger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Riddle may be contacted at RiddleRN@bv.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at BurgerBB@bv.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    December 02, 2019 —
    In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    September 09, 2019 —
    In its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention. The first possible amendment will modify the Board’s administrative election blocking charge practice by establishing a regulation-based vote and impound procedure to be used when a party, typically a union facing possible decertification, files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge and, based thereon, seeks to block the holding of an election. The second possible amendment will modify the Board’s current recognition bar case law by codifying prior Board case doctrine and creating a regulation-based requirement of notice of voluntary recognition to affected employees and a 45-day open period within which affected employees may call for an election before that voluntary recognition will be allowed to operate as a bar to employees raising later questions concerning the union’s representative status (QCR). Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Keahn Morris, John Bolesta and James Hays Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Hays may be contacted at jhays@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    September 03, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court will be deciding some very important regulatory law cases in the new few weeks as the term winds down. CERCLA Circled Last week, the Court granted a petition to review a significant CERCLA case, Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian, et al., decided by the Supreme Court of Montana on state law grounds. This case involves state litigation which could result in a cleanup whose scope is allegedly inconsistent with an ongoing and expensive federal CERCLA cleanup at the Anaconda Smelter site. CERCLA basically provides that no one may challenge an ongoing Superfund cleanup, yet this state common law proceeding seeking a cleanup of the plaintiff’s homes and properties arguably threatens the EPA-approved cleanup remedy. ARCO filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the Court has now granted despite the Solicitor General’s brief which argued that the Court should wait to see the results of the Montana trial. (It is unusual for the Court to reject the advice of the Solicitor General.) 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

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    August 06, 2019 —
    Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    August 06, 2019 —
    It doesn’t take much to be catastrophically wrong in construction; some bad information, a touch of misleading intel, a few biased opinions mixed with human error and perhaps a little bad luck to top it off. A poor decision early in a project plants itself like a weed—it grows benignly at first, and becomes gravely pervasive at the end. Being wrong in construction is dangerous. Error leads to leaning towers and broken buildings. Poorly-built structures can hinder economic growth and deprive communities of good infrastructure. For the enterprise, bad decisions can lead to massive financial loss and—worse—human loss on a jobsite. Despite knowing all the dangers, it seems that flawed data, misleading intel and human error have become traits the industry can’t shake. To be clear, construction is one of—if not the most—complex industry in today’s economy. Companies walk a tight rope between a 2% margin on one side and ruinous loss on the other. Under such conditions, it’s easy to see why sustained good judgement is difficult. Reprinted courtesy of Bassem Hamdy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    October 07, 2019 —
    The mention of 3D printing alone is enough to get people excited, often conjuring images of a desktop console that can download and create three dimensional objects such as prototypes, or mechanical parts. And yet, in recent years the technology has given way to a slight impatience, as people begin to wonder how and when it will have a direct impact on both their lifestyles and their businesses. The construction industry has been quick to take advantage of these innovations, and the effects are tangible, especially regarding building safety. The 3D construction technology allows for several key advantages in terms of faster construction times, uncompromised quality of construction and lower costs—allowing for affordable dwellings to be quickly built for people in need. These advantages also lead to safety improvements during the building process. The ability to accelerate construction time without requiring an increase in labor results in a fewer construction-related workplace injuries and a reduction in material waste, making it an environmentally friendly construction method as well. ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council (ICC) which develops model codes and standards (i.e. International Building Code, International Residential Code) and delivers a wide array of building safety services, has taken the lead on developing acceptance criteria to address building code compliance of 3D printed construction. Currently, 3D construction technology is not within the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC). The acceptance criteria introduces new compliance measures for interior and exterior 3D printed concrete walls (with and without structural steel reinforcement), load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls in one-story, single-unit, residential dwellings. The 3D walls are constructed by printing two outer layers of 3D concrete and then filling the core with 3D concrete to form a solid wall. Reprinted courtesy of Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Ekenel may be contacted at mekenel@icc-es.org Ms. Sanchez may be contacted at msanchez@icc-es.org Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of