BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida structural steel construction expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida condominiums expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida multi family housing expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida production housing expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida condominium expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida custom home expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida industrial building expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida Medical building expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida retail construction expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida hospital construction expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida townhome construction expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida office building expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida tract home expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida custom homes expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida high-rise construction expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida casino resort expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida parking structure expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida housing expert witness Indian Harbour Beach Florida
    Indian Harbour Beach Florida OSHA expert witness constructionIndian Harbour Beach Florida delay claim expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida expert witness roofingIndian Harbour Beach Florida expert witness structural engineerIndian Harbour Beach Florida concrete expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida construction project management expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Indian Harbour 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 Indian Harbour 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

    Indian Harbour Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Indian Harbour 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

    Indian Harbour Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Indian Harbour Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Indian Harbour Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Indian Harbour Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Indian Harbour Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Indian Harbour Beach Florida


    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    The Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”) Applies When a Duty Arises from Statute or Common Law and is Independent from The Terms of a Specific Contract. (OR)

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    No Rest for the Weary: Project Completion Is the Beginning of Litigation

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages

    Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    Brooklyn’s Industry City to Get $1 Billion Modernization

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage
    Corporate Profile

    INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    April 13, 2020 —
    Is a cash register that is not being used damaged property? When you need to wash a table, a chair, or a section of flooring with readily available cleaning products to make them safe and useable, are you repairing damaged property? Is a spilled cup of coffee waiting to be wiped up actual damage to the premises? If your customers stay home to help stop the spread of a virus, has there been a physical loss inside your shuttered store or restaurant? The insuring agreements typically found in commercial property insurance policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property as the triggering event. Without establishing direct physical loss or damage a policyholder cannot meet its burden to trigger coverage for a purely economic loss of business income resulting from shuttering its business due to concerns over exposure to—or even the actual presence of—COVID-19. Despite this well-understood policy language, it is already beyond question that insurers will confront creative—albeit strained—arguments from policyholder firms attempting to trigger coverage for pure economic loss. The scope of the human and economic tragedy we all face will be matched by the scope of the effort to force the financial harm onto insurance companies. The plaintiffs in what appears to be the first-filed case seeking a declaratory judgment in the context of first-party insurance coverage rely on the assertion that “contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces” of its establishment, a New Orleans restaurant, to trigger coverage for business interruption.[1] See Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that the property is insured under an “all risk policy” defining “covered causes of loss” as “direct physical loss.” The plaintiffs rely on the alleged presence of the virus on “the surface of objects” in certain conditions and the need to clean those surfaces. They go so far as to claim that “[a]ny effort by [the insurer] to deny the reality that the virus causes physical damage and loss would constitute a false and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. . . .” Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown and Michelle Bernard Mr. Blyskal may be contacted at tblatchley@grsm.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at dbrown@grsm.com Ms. Bernard may be contacted at mbernard@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    April 27, 2020 —
    This case concerns calculation of a damages award to a general contractor, Skanska USA Building, Inc., on its claim for breach of contract against its masonry subcontractor, J.D. Long Masonry, Inc., arising from Long’s faulty construction of a masonry façade at a medical research facility in Baltimore. When the façade collapsed and Long failed to repair it, Skanska hired a replacement subcontractor, C.A. Lindman, to remediate Long’s defective work and filed suit against Long to recover the resulting damages. After the court granted Skanska’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, Skanska moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages, relying on the indemnification provision of the subcontract to seek compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and litigation fees. In the subcontract, Long agreed to indemnify and hold Skanska harmless from all claims, losses, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, arising before or after completion of Long’s work, caused by, arising out of, resulting from, or occurring in connection with Long’s performance of the work or breach of the subcontract. The court first applied the terms of this provision to award Skanska compensatory damages, holding that Skanska was, as a matter of law, entitled to recover the amount of the Lindman subcontract and general conditions incurred to supervise remediation of Long’s work. The court, however, denied Skanska’s claim for pre-judgment interest on the entirety of these damages. Skanska asserted that it was entitled to pre-judgment interest on the full award, calculated from the date on which it first paid Lindman. The court disagreed, explaining that, under Maryland law, a claimant is entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest as of right only when the amount due is certain, definite and liquidated by a specific date prior to judgment. The court reasoned that, because much of the Lindman subcontract value was composed of later-executed change orders, an award of pre-judgment interest could not be uniformly calculated back to the date of Skanska’s first payment to Lindman. And moreover, because Skanska continued to withhold sums due to Lindman pending resolution of certain issues, awarding Skanska pre-judgment interest on amounts it had not yet paid would result in a “windfall” to Skanska because there was no “use of income” loss to be compensated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John J. Gazzola, Pepper Hamilton LLP
    Mr. Gazzola may be contacted at gazzolaj@pepperlaw.com

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    January 20, 2020 —
    We are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:
    1. PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
    2. CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
    3. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    April 13, 2020 —
    By now every construction professional has been inundated with articles regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on the construction industry. The sheer volume of information is overwhelming and changes by the hour. This article is intended to summarize key issues affecting construction professionals and serve as a general road map for navigating the crisis. 1. Determine Project Status The first consideration is whether the construction projects at issue are allowed to proceed given “shelter in place” and related orders. Generally speaking, Governor Newsom has deemed construction to be essential and, therefore, exempt from California’s “Safer at Home” order. There is some debate as to whether the governor’s order takes priority over contradictory local (City and County) orders. For example, some Northern California counties and the City of Berkeley have issued orders expressly providing that their local orders legally supersede the State order because the local orders are more restrictive. If a local ordinance, public entity representative, or the project owner orders the project to shut down, the parties will need to make a fact specific determination regarding how to proceed at that time. If the project proceeds, employee safety is paramount. In the City of Los Angeles employers are required to develop a “comprehensive COVID-19 exposure control plan” that includes a laundry list of safety requirements. Regardless of the jurisdiction, the parties must err on the side of caution and comply with social distancing (six feet), refrain from holding meetings, and close the project to the public. Anyone who can work remotely should be encouraged to do so. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Adams, Gibbs Giden
    Mr. Adams may be contacted at jadams@gibbsgiden.com

    Hawaii Federal District Court Remands Coverage Dispute

    June 15, 2020 —
    Accepting the insured's amended complaint, the federal district court of Hawaii remanded the coverage action to state court. Hale v. Lloyd's, London, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9061 (D. Haw. Jan. 17, 2020). Hale purchased a policy for his home in Hilo, Hawaii, from Defendant Pyramid Insurance Centre. The policy was memorialized by a Lloyd's Certificate issued by Defendant Lloyd's. On September 19, 2017, Hale entered Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Included in the bankruptcy proceeding was Hale's home and a secured home mortgage loan now owned by Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. The Bankruptcy Court issued a discharge order on January 18, 2018. On May 9, 2018, Hale's home was destroyed, being covered with lava from the Kilauea volcano eruption. Hale filed a claim with Lloyd's based upon the loss of his home. The claim was denied. Subsequently, however, Lloyd's issued a check for the full amount of the policy. Both Hale and Specialized Loan were listed as payees on the check. 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

    The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

    March 23, 2020 —
    The Department of Labor (“DOL”) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued its 148-page Updated Construction Contractor Technical Assistance Guide (the “Guide”) on November 13, 2019. A complete copy of the Guide can be found here, but the below provides a summary of what every Federal Construction Contractor should know regarding the OFCCP’s November 2019 update to its prior 2006 publication. The DOL has identified the Guide as a “self-assessment tool” to assist contractors in meeting “their legal requirements and responsibilities for equal employment opportunity by preventing violations before they occur.” However, the Guide does not create or impose new requirements for Federal Construction Contractors. Instead, the Guide provides an overview of anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements and obligations under existing laws and regulations, and suggests best practices and guidance. Specifically, the Guide provides:
    • A concise summary of Federal Construction Contractors’ legal obligations under the three main laws enforced by the OFCCP: Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
    • A detailed explanation of requirements for written Affirmative Action Plans;
    • A clear schedule of Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications;
    • A reorganized recap of the sixteen affirmative action steps Federal Construction Contractors are required to implement in good-faith; and
    • A user-friendly roadmap of what to expect during an OFCCP audit, including a discussion of record keeping requirements.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

    Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

    June 15, 2020 —
    On June 3, 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act ("Act") which does exactly what it means to do: provide flexibility for PPP loan recipients. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law within the week. The Act extends the "covered period" for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans from the original eight weeks to 24 weeks or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This extension provides much needed reprieve to small businesses who can utilize these funds to weather the economic effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic through 2020. The Act also revises the limitations on how small businesses utilize their PPP loans. While the CARES Act originally required 75% of the PPP loan to be used for payroll costs, this number has now been reduced to 60%. This means that up to 40% of the PPP loan can be used to cover mortgage obligations, rent, and other covered utility payments. The PPP loan payment deferral period has also been extended to align with the date on which the PPP loan's forgiveness amount is remitted to the lender. This should provide more certainty to small businesses on their payback obligations, if any. Recently, the Small Business Administration also released loan forgiveness applications to assist a business in calculating their loan forgiveness. While the SBA will likely revise it with the Act's passing, small businesses should look at the application's framework to prepare for submitting their loan forgiveness requests in the future. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/. Reprinted courtesy of Greg Tross, Newmeyer Dillion and Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    May 11, 2020 —
    In response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply. Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com