• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing expert witness Margate Florida Medical building expert witness Margate Florida office building expert witness Margate Florida landscaping construction expert witness Margate Florida custom homes expert witness Margate Florida casino resort expert witness Margate Florida housing expert witness Margate Florida hospital construction expert witness Margate Florida condominium expert witness Margate Florida low-income housing expert witness Margate Florida condominiums expert witness Margate Florida parking structure expert witness Margate Florida production housing expert witness Margate Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Margate Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Margate Florida townhome construction expert witness Margate Florida custom home expert witness Margate Florida institutional building expert witness Margate Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Margate Florida high-rise construction expert witness Margate Florida industrial building expert witness Margate Florida tract home expert witness Margate Florida
    Margate Florida consulting architect expert witnessMargate Florida roofing and waterproofing expert witnessMargate Florida engineering consultantMargate Florida stucco expert witnessMargate Florida civil engineer expert witnessMargate Florida construction claims expert witnessMargate Florida slope failure expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Margate, 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 Margate 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

    Margate Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Margate Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Margate Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Margate Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Margate Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Margate Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Margate Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Margate Florida

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    Massive Redesign Turns Newark Airport Terminal Into a Foodie Theme Park

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy

    Saudi Arabia Awards Contracts for Megacity Neom’s Worker Housing

    Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

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

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Boston Construction Bands With Health Care to Fight COVID-19

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

    Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

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

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

    The Contributors to This Blog Are Pleased to Announce That….

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

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team
    Corporate Profile


    The Margate, 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 Margate'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
    Margate, Florida

    Business Risk Exclusions Dismissed in Summary Judgment Motion

    November 09, 2020 —
    While the court denied summary judgment on whether the alleged damage was due to faulty workmanship and not covered, it granted summary judgment for dismissal of several business risk exclusions the insurer asserted against the developer. United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dorn Homes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138431 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2020). Dorn, a residential home developer, developed a 350 single family residential home division. Dorn did not perform the actual construction, but contracted with various subcontractors. After completion, Dorn began to receive complaints from homeowners about interior damage to some of the homes. Inspections showed interior cracking, wall separation and foundation movement. Dorn ultimately installed an unvented foam insulated roof system to address these issues. Therefore, it did not repair the faulty workmanship of its subcontractors because it would not have been efficient or as effective. Dorn paid for the repairs to the 87 homes at issue. 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

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    October 26, 2020 —
    Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at Mr. Vita may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    September 07, 2020 —
    Earlier this year, Assemblyman Edwin Chau (D-Monterey Park) introduced Assembly Bill 2320. AB 2320, if passed, would require any business that contracts with the state and has access to records containing personal information protected under the state’s Information Practices Act (IPA) to maintain cyber insurance coverage. Information covered under the IPA includes names, social security numbers, physical descriptions, home addresses, home telephone numbers, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. Requiring contractors to maintain cyber insurance will likely both shift the costs of cyberattacks from taxpayers to the private sector, while also encouraging robust cyber security practices among businesses of all sizes. While the bill has not yet passed, businesses will be best served by implementing and improving cybersecurity practices now in order to attain lowest premium rates in the future. Incentivizing Best Practices With the adoption of AB 2320, businesses will be incentivized to increase their security posture in order to receive lower premiums from insurers. Simultaneously, insurers will be incentivized to mandate best practices from their insureds in order to mitigate their risk of having to pay out on cyber insurance policies. Thus, cyber insurance will work as a vehicle to increase best practices in businesses and subsequently decrease vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. Reprinted courtesy of Makenna Miller, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Ms. Miller may be contacted at Mr. Dennis may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

    October 26, 2020 —
    The emergence of COVID-19 has created a new set of challenges in the already complex world of negotiating construction contracts. In the pre-COVID-19 era, general contractors, construction managers and those negotiating on their behalf, needed to balance a variety of fairly well-established legal risks and exposures and commercial realities with the need to maintain a positive relationship with their counterparty. While many are rightfully concerned with addressing the impacts of COVID-19 to their on-going projects, those negotiating new contracts now are undoubtedly cognizant that they are negotiating in the midst of an unpredictable future that is tipping the historical negotiating balance. The following presents some crucial areas to focus on when negotiating and drafting your contracts in this new era. Contract Terms Through the COVID-19 Lens Contractors should examine proposed new contracts carefully to identify rights that afford COVID-19 protections and identify contractual obligations that create COVID-19 commercial risks. Specific attention should be paid to those sections relating to force majeure/excusable delay, emergencies, changes (including changes in law), contingency, suspension and termination, site investigation as well as all representations and warranties. The paramount concern in examining these provisions is to ensure that they not only entitle the contractor to relief for those unknown events, emergencies and changes, but that they also contain sufficient entitlement for the contractor to obtain both time extensions and financial compensation for unknown impacts of a known event – the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at Mr. Cohen may be contacted at Mr. Snyder may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    October 19, 2020 —
    Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021

    September 14, 2020 —
    Nine Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021. Congratulations to Courtney Arbucci, Frances Brower, James de los Reyes, Kyle DiNicola, Arezoo Jamshidi, Kristian Moriarty, Beth Obra-White, Casey Otis and Kaitlin Preston! Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 94,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and Best Lawyers has received over 11 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    October 05, 2020 —
    The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in pending COVID-19 business interruption claims. In re COVID-19 Business interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 144446 (Aug. 12, 2020). Plaintiff policy holders sought consolidation, contending their policies provided coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. The Panel considered 15 actions on the pending motions, but had notice of 263 related actions. Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or sought to be excluded from any MDL. Some argued the Panel should centralize the coverage actions on a state-by-state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis. The Panel did not accept consolidation of all cases. There was little potential for common discovery across the litigation because there was no common defendant as the actions involved either a single insurer or insurer-group. The various cases involved different insurance policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses in different industries located in different states. 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

    Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

    September 21, 2020 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Ibarra v. Gastelum, 2020 WL 4218020 (7/23/20), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – in a tenant’s personal injury claim against the landlord – a landlord’s violation of the Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act constituted negligence per se. The tenant alleged he was injured by stubbing his toe on a crack in the floor. The tenant alleged that he had made repeated demands that the landlord repair the crack. The statute required the landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. The tenant argued that a violation of the statute constituted negligence per se, meaning that the violation of the statute satisfied (as a matter of law) the first two elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. The tenant requested a negligence per se jury instruction. The trial court declined that request and refused to give the requested instruction. The tenant lost the jury trial and appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Parker may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of