BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing expert witness Graceville Florida parking structure expert witness Graceville Florida retail construction expert witness Graceville Florida multi family housing expert witness Graceville Florida condominium expert witness Graceville Florida landscaping construction expert witness Graceville Florida high-rise construction expert witness Graceville Florida custom homes expert witness Graceville Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Graceville Florida condominiums expert witness Graceville Florida office building expert witness Graceville Florida Medical building expert witness Graceville Florida industrial building expert witness Graceville Florida institutional building expert witness Graceville Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Graceville Florida townhome construction expert witness Graceville Florida tract home expert witness Graceville Florida production housing expert witness Graceville Florida custom home expert witness Graceville Florida hospital construction expert witness Graceville Florida structural steel construction expert witness Graceville Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Graceville Florida
    Graceville Florida window expert witnessGraceville Florida roofing and waterproofing expert witnessGraceville Florida engineering expert witnessGraceville Florida multi family design expert witnessGraceville Florida construction code expert witnessGraceville Florida construction expert witness consultantGraceville Florida civil engineering expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Graceville, 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 Graceville 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

    Graceville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Graceville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Graceville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Graceville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Graceville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Graceville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Graceville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Graceville Florida


    Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

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

    Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

    Preventing Costly Litigation Through Your Construction Contract

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

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

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    Potential Construction Liabilities Contractors Need to Know

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    Construction Lien Does Not Include Late Fees Separate From Interest

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.

    Landmark San Diego Hotel Settles Defects Suit for $6.4 Million

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Affirmed

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    Be a Good Neighbor: Techniques to Mitigate the Risk of Claims from Adjacent Landowners

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    How AI Can Become a Design Adviser

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    43% of U.S. Homes in High Natural Disaster Risk Areas
    Corporate Profile

    GRACEVILLE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Graceville, 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Graceville'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
    Graceville, Florida

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2021 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    November 09, 2020 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that U.S. News-Best Lawyers® has recognized the firm in its 2021 "Best Law Firms" rankings, in six practice areas earning the highest ranking possible - Tier 1 in the Orange County Metro area. The practices recognized include Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law, Real Estate Law, Litigation - Real Estate, Construction Law, and Litigation - Construction. Firms included in the 2021 "Best Law Firms" list have been recognized by their clients and peers for their professional excellence. Firms achieving a Tier 1 ranking have consistently demonstrated a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. "We are grateful that our relationship-first approach to propel our clients' needs forward has received this recognition," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "We will continue to show our appreciation through hard work in advocating for our clients and communities." To be eligible for the "Best Law Firms" ranking, a firm must have at least one attorney recognized in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America for a specific practice area. Best Lawyers recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S., selected through exhaustive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. About Newmeyer Dillion For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    October 12, 2020 —
    The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an insurer has a duty to defend when faced with legal uncertainty as to whether coverage is owed: for example, when there is no Connecticut case law on point, and courts outside of the state have reached conflicting decisions. The Court suggested that an insurer, in these circumstances, should defend the insured, and should seek a declaratory judgment from a court as to whether coverage is owed. The issue in Nash St., LLC v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co.,[1] arose out of a home collapse in Milford, Connecticut. The owner of the home (Nash) hired a contractor (New Beginnings) to renovate the home. New Beginnings, in turn, retained a subcontractor to lift the house and to do concrete work on the foundation. While the subcontractor was lifting the house, the house shifted off the supporting cribbing and collapsed. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwiliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    November 16, 2020 —
    It is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.” Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending. By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams
    Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com

    Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    September 21, 2020 —
    Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 Md. LEXIS 347 (July 27, 2020) (Steamfitters Local), a matter originally discussed in a June 2019 blog post, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that, where the property owner knows or should have known that people are habitually discarding hundreds of cigarette butts into a mulch bed along the boundary of the neighboring property, the property owner owes a duty to its neighbors to prevent the risk of fire. As discussed in Steamfitters Local, a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found hundreds of cigarette butts in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and the defendants appealed. 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

    Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

    October 19, 2020 —
    A recently issued opinion by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District tells a cautionary tale regarding a lender’s failure to name a junior lienholder in its initial judicial foreclosure action. In Cathleen Robin v. Al Crowell, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2020 WL 5951506, plaintiffs sued defendant, a junior lienholder, for quiet title, having failed to name him in the initial judicial foreclosure action. Defendant raised the statute of limitations defense, but the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the 60-year statute of limitations which the trial court applied only applied to a nonjudicial trustee’s sale, and the trial court could not exercise the trustee’s power of sale after the expiration of the statute of limitations on a judicial action to foreclose. In 2006, plaintiffs loaned Steve and Marta Weinstein (the “Weinsteins”) $450,000, secured by a deed of trust on one parcel of the Weinstein’s property. In 2007, the Weinsteins and defendant Al Crowell (“Crowell”) recorded a second deed of trust on the property, securing a promissory note executed by the Weinsteins in 2004. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    November 30, 2020 —
    Lately, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a heightened concern that some construction projects will not proceed as planned. Therefore, it is important to review each party’s right to terminate a construction contract and to examine some of the resulting consequences. While the parties to a construction contract can, as always, agree to other mutually acceptable terms and provisions, in broad terms, a typical construction contract includes four triggering events that can lead to termination. First, an owner can terminate a construction contract if the contractor defaults and thereafter fails to cure such default, which may include, without limitation, the failure to remediate deficient work, the failure to meet the construction schedule, the failure to pay subcontractors and the failure to comply with applicable law. A contractor must be mindful of the fact that in the case of such termination by the owner for cause, the vast majority of construction contracts provide that the contractor will not be entitled to receive any further payment for work performed by the contractor until the work is finished. Reprinted courtesy of Stuart Rosen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Rosen may be contacted at srosen@proskauer.com

    New Mexico Architect Is Tuned Into His State

    February 08, 2021 —
    For 40-plus years, Van Gilbert has combined his love for the topography, history and culture of New Mexico with an equally passionate dedication to designing not just structures, but buildings that help create communities. Reprinted courtesy of David M. Brown, 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

    COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

    December 14, 2020 —
    On November 19, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) proposed sweeping and significant new emergency standards to reduce employee exposure to COVID-19. These standards have been accepted by the Office of Administrative Law and are effective as of November 30, 2020. Accordingly, it is critical that employers familiarize themselves with these new requirements and begin to implement these standards as quickly as possible. The standards include COVID-19 prevention in the workplace, multiple COVID-19 infections and outbreaks in the workplace, “major” COVID-19 outbreaks in the workplace, prevention in employer provided housing, and prevention in employer-provided transportation to and from work. They apply to all California employers and places of employment, except places with one employee who does not have contact with others, employees working from home, or employees in specified health care facilities, services or operations when covered by section 5199. COVID-19 Prevention Program Employers are required to establish, implement, and maintain an “effective” written COVID-19 Prevention Program. Under the Program, an employer is responsible for developing a system for communicating about COVID-19, identifying and evaluating COVID-19 hazards, investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases, correcting COVID-19 hazards, providing training and instructions to employees regarding COVID-19, ensuring all employees are physically distanced, providing face coverings, implementing policies regarding personal protective equipment and recordkeeping, ensuring COVID-19 cases are excluded from the workplace, and prohibiting symptomatic employees from returning to work unless certain requirements are met. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois, Drake Mirsch, Lewis Brisbois and Jade McKenzie, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Mirsch may be contacted at Drake.Mirsch@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. McKenzie may be contacted at Jade.Mckenzie@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of