BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing expert witness Grand Ridge Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Grand Ridge Florida tract home expert witness Grand Ridge Florida institutional building expert witness Grand Ridge Florida custom home expert witness Grand Ridge Florida structural steel construction expert witness Grand Ridge Florida casino resort expert witness Grand Ridge Florida low-income housing expert witness Grand Ridge Florida industrial building expert witness Grand Ridge Florida office building expert witness Grand Ridge Florida condominiums expert witness Grand Ridge Florida hospital construction expert witness Grand Ridge Florida production housing expert witness Grand Ridge Florida parking structure expert witness Grand Ridge Florida townhome construction expert witness Grand Ridge Florida high-rise construction expert witness Grand Ridge Florida landscaping construction expert witness Grand Ridge Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Grand Ridge Florida Medical building expert witness Grand Ridge Florida retail construction expert witness Grand Ridge Florida housing expert witness Grand Ridge Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Grand Ridge Florida
    Grand Ridge Florida expert witness commercial buildingsGrand Ridge Florida structural engineering expert witnessesGrand Ridge Florida expert witness structural engineerGrand Ridge Florida expert witness concrete failureGrand Ridge Florida construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessGrand Ridge Florida expert witness roofingGrand Ridge Florida consulting architect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Grand Ridge, 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 Grand Ridge 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

    Grand Ridge Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Grand Ridge Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Grand Ridge Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Grand Ridge Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Grand Ridge Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Grand Ridge Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Grand Ridge Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Grand Ridge Florida


    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

    New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Texas Approves Law Ensuring Fair and Open Competition

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

    Contract Construction Smarts: Helpful Provisions for Dispute Resolution

    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

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

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

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    The ARC and The Covenants

    Addressing the Defective Stucco Crisis

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    What Rich Millennials Want in a Luxury Home: 20,000 Square Feet

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion
    Corporate Profile

    GRAND RIDGE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Grand Ridge, 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 Grand Ridge'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
    Grand Ridge, Florida

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

    October 05, 2020 —
    Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    December 07, 2020 —
    In Caliber Paving Company, Inc. v. Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc., Case No. G0584406 (September 1, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a higher-tiered party on a construction project can be held liable for intentional interference with contract when it interferes with the contract between lower-tiered parties even though the higher-tiered party has an economic interest in the contract between the lower-tiered parties. The Caliber Paving Case Project owner Rexford Industrial Realty and Management, Inc. owns and operates industrial property throughout Southern California. In 2017, Rexford hired contractor Steve Fodor Construction to perform repaving work at Rexford’s property in Carson, California. Fodor Construction in turn hired subcontractor Caliber Paving Company, Inc. to perform the repaving work. The subcontract divided the parking lot into four areas, with separate costs to repave each area, and Caliber completed its work in one area in June 2017. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

    December 14, 2020 —
    The most un-Halloween of Halloweens has come and gone. If you ask me though, between COVID, protests, fires, hurricanes, the passing of a Supreme Court Justice, and one of the most hotly contested elections in U.S. history, we’ve had enough scares this year to make up for it and then some. In the next case, Sieg v. Registrar of Contractors, Case No. A156089 (September 28, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeal, one contractor, haunted by “demonized” flooring, and who couldn’t catch a break even with the talisman of a release of liability signed by the homeowner, can add one more to his list of reasons why 2020 needs to be relegated to the history books. The Sieg Case In January 2012, homeowners Dennis and Ana Torchia purchased wood flooring for their home in Windsor, California. Specifically, they selected Brazilian Ebony, an exotic species of unusually hard wood, for its appearance and durability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.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

    You May Be Able to Dodge a Bullet, But Not a Gatling Gun

    November 16, 2020 —
    In the days before cable, and long before Netflix, I watched my fair share of spaghetti westerns on lazy weekend afternoons. Bullets zinging past cowboys, knocking off hats, and ricocheting off rocks. But while you might get lucky and dodge a bullet, not so with a Gatling gun.* In the next case, C. W. Johnson & Sons, Inc. v. Carpenter, Case No. B300187 (August 7, 2020), a contractor who was unlicensed during a portion of a project dodged a bullet. However, I’m not so sure that he’s going to be able to dodge the hail of bullets that are coming after. The C. W. Johnson & Sons Case As cases go, the C. W. Johnson & Sons case is pretty straightforward. In March 2016, Contractor C. W. Johnson & Sons, a family owned flooring company, was contracted to install flooring at Randall Carpenter’s house for a total contract price of $68,343. Work was performed between March and September 2016 including some warranty, repair and corrective work after September 2016. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.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

    Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers

    October 12, 2020 —
    The anticipation has been building regarding implementation of the new revenue recognition standard, known as Topic 606, by private companies. Public companies have reported under Topic 606 since the beginning of 2019. For private companies, the time is now. As of January 2020, private companies became subject to Topic 606 for all entities with a year-end of Dec. 31, 2019, or subsequent. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic affecting businesses across the board, this year any company with a year-end financial statement not yet issued can defer implementation of Topic 606 until the contractors’ next year end that falls after Dec. 15, 2020. What have we learned about the impact of Topic 606, if any, on construction contractors’ financial statements? The most significant impact relates to the presentation of contract assets and contract liabilities, and the disclosures associated with Topic 606. The recording of what is known as “the cost to fulfill a contract” is another area that has been affected. PRESENTATION OF CONTRACT ASSET AND CONTRACT LIABILITY A contract asset is defined in Topic 606 as an entity’s right to consideration in exchange for goods or services the entity has transferred to a customer, conditional on something other than the passage of time. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Sisk & Robert Mercado, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Sisk may be contacted at Christopher.sisk@marcumllp.com Mr. Mercado may be contacted at Robert.mercado@marcumllp.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    December 29, 2020 —
    In American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2020 WL 5630017 (Sept. 21, 2020), the Northern District of California of the United States District Court had occasion to consider whether allegations in an underlying complaint triggered a duty to defend and a late notice defense to coverage. The underlying actions were a suit against the City of Walnut Creek for damages from flooding allegedly caused by the City’s failure to develop and maintain its storm drains.The City settled the cases then sued its liability insurers who issued its coverage in the period 1968 to 1986 for indemnification of the amounts spent to defend and settle the cases.The published decision involved three Travelers’ policies issued to the City between 1968 and 1976, as to which Travelers sought summary judgment as to the lack of coverage in its policies. The district court first found that the definition of an “occurrence” in the policies, in one policy “an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which causes injury to person or damage to property during the policy period” and in the other two “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the period this policy is in effect, in bodily injury or property damage,” fell within the rule of Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, that injury or damage during the policy period must occur in order for the policy to be triggered.The court agreed with Travelers that while there were allegations of flooding for many years, the only claims/allegations of property damage were for the period 2000 and later.Therefore the property damage coverage in the policies was never triggered. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com