BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing expert witness Melbourne Village Florida condominium expert witness Melbourne Village Florida casino resort expert witness Melbourne Village Florida Medical building expert witness Melbourne Village Florida hospital construction expert witness Melbourne Village Florida custom homes expert witness Melbourne Village Florida landscaping construction expert witness Melbourne Village Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Melbourne Village Florida townhome construction expert witness Melbourne Village Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Melbourne Village Florida custom home expert witness Melbourne Village Florida structural steel construction expert witness Melbourne Village Florida housing expert witness Melbourne Village Florida high-rise construction expert witness Melbourne Village Florida institutional building expert witness Melbourne Village Florida condominiums expert witness Melbourne Village Florida industrial building expert witness Melbourne Village Florida production housing expert witness Melbourne Village Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Melbourne Village Florida tract home expert witness Melbourne Village Florida office building expert witness Melbourne Village Florida parking structure expert witness Melbourne Village Florida
    Melbourne Village Florida contractor expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida civil engineer expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida construction claims expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida expert witness concrete failureMelbourne Village Florida fenestration expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida construction project management expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida window expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Melbourne Village, 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 Melbourne Village 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

    Melbourne Village Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Melbourne Village Florida


    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

    Appraisal Process Analyzed

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Nationally Ranked as a 2020 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

    NTSB Cites Design Errors in Fatal Bridge Collapse

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics
    Corporate Profile

    MELBOURNE VILLAGE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Melbourne Village, 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 Melbourne Village'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
    Melbourne Village, Florida

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    September 04, 2019 —
    Senator Bill Dodd, who represents Napa County and surrounding areas in the California Senate, has recently introduced Senate Bill 240, known colloquially as The Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019. S.B. 240 would amend the California Insurance Code to streamline and organize claim processing, particularly during a state of emergency / catastrophic events. The proposal is in response to a series of devastating wildfires which ravaged the Sonoma County and Napa Valley wine country during the 2017 fire season (Atlas, Tubbs, and Nun fires). Many of Senator Dodd’s constituents reported difficulty in navigating the claim process due to multiple claim professionals handling a single claim, many of whom were outside of California, and many of whose capabilities were challenged. S.B. 240 would direct the Department of Insurance to issue annual notices setting forth legal developments as they relate to property insurance policies, including best practices for evaluating damage caused by an emergency, and requires out-of-state claims professionals to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have read these notices along with claim adjusting literature also prepared by the Department of Insurance. S.B. 240 would also require insurers to designate a primary point of contact for their customers during a state of emergency until the claim is closed or litigation is initiated. While the proposed legislation would not prohibit multiple claims professionals handling a single claim, it would provide for training standards issued by the Department of Insurance on how best to handle claims in a state of emergency. Further, S.B. 240 would require claims professionals who are not licensed in California (1) to be supervised by a licensed California claims professional, and (2) to read and understand the annual emergency claim adjusting literature issued by the Department of Insurance within 15 calendar days of beginning adjusting of claims in California. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous vote and is pending in the Assembly. The bill is also supported by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Accordingly, the bill is expected to pass the Legislature. Once enacted, S.B. 240 would significantly elevate claim adjusting requirements related to emergencies, such as natural disasters, by placing greater oversight in the Department of Insurance, and greater responsibility on claims professional within and outside of California. How pragmatic these requirements are and what practical impact they will have on the industry are developments which we will follow and provide further commentary as this bill makes its way through the California legislature and into the California Insurance Code. Reprinted courtesy of Jon A.Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. A.Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    November 04, 2019 —
    In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    January 27, 2020 —
    Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    November 24, 2019 —
    A major natural-gas leak forced Lawrence, Mass., residents to evacuate their homes early on Sept. 27. National Grid cut power to more than 1,300 customers to avoid another disaster like last year’s natural-gas explosions and fires in Lawrence and two other towns north of Boston. The leak came just days after federal officials called for changes to national pipeline regulations as they released a final report on the causes of the Sept. 13, 2018, disaster. Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, 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

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    January 20, 2020 —
    Facing yet another collapse claim based upon alleged poorly mixed cement, the Federal District Court in Connecticut denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Oliveria v. Safeco Ins Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147256 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2019). In 1993, the insureds' purchased their home that had been built in 1986. Safeco insured the property. In February 2017, the insureds noticed that the basement walls had a series of cracks. They consulted professionals and learned that the cracking was due to a chemical compound found in certain concrete walls constructed in the late 1980s with concrete most likely from the J. J. Mottes Concrete Company. The insureds submitted a claim to Safeco for the substantial impairment to the structural integrity of their basement walls. Safeco denied the claim. The insureds filed suit. Safeco moved to dismiss. 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

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    November 24, 2019 —
    Newmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, today announced Greg Dillion and the firm were named the 2019 Good Scout Award recipient by the Boy Scouts of America, Orange County Council. Dillion and the firm were recognized at the 38th annual Construction Industry Luncheon on November 18th at Hotel Irvine in Irvine, CA. The award is given to individual/company in recognition of their outstanding character, leadership in their industry and commitment to their community. "When reviewing the 12 points of the Scout's law, with each point as a goal for every Scout to live up to, the two that stand out the most for me that Greg embodies are that Greg is 'helpful' and Greg is 'brave,'" says Newmeyer Dillion's Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff, who served as Master of Ceremonies for this year's award. "Greg has the instantaneous willingness to help, and he will make the time to help even when he has no time to do so. Greg never runs and he never backs down. He is the person that we look up to. He never hesitates, and he never blames. He only moves forward. I've been blessed in my life to be around and influenced by some tremendous leaders. Greg is the real deal. The Boy Scouts could not have picked a better man to honor." Greg Dillion is a founding partner of Newmeyer Dillion. Established 35 years ago, the firm has grown from three attorneys to over 70 in three offices. Along with an active trial and appellate public and private practice, Dillion represents residential and commercial developers and other businesses in complex and high stakes business, insurance, real estate and construction disputes. He also advises on insurance policy placement and review; risk avoidance, transfer and management; and alternative dispute resolution methods, techniques and enforceability. Dillion is active in the community in which he serves, as a supporter of numerous charities and non-profit organizations like the American Cancer Society, Boys Scouts of America, The City of Hope, Interval House, Joyful Child, The Catalina Conservancy, Orangewood Foundation, The Shea Center, The Catalina Cowboy Heritage Foundation and more. He currently sits on the Board for the Surfing Heritage & Culture Center and the Los Caballeros. Learn More: https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/gregory-l-dillion/ https://vimeo.com/374510243/a587df2eaa About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs and takes an integrated and holistic approach to its legal representation that propels each clients' vision, mission, culture, operations, peace of mind and bottom line. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

    November 24, 2019 —
    I am truly grateful that my buddy Craig Martin (@craigmartin_jd) continues his great posts over at The Construction Contractor Advisor blog. He is always a good cure for writer’s block and once again this week he gave me some inspiration. In his most recent post, Craig discusses a recent Indiana case relating to the ever present issue of termination by a subcontractor for non-payment. In the Indiana case, the court looked at the payment terms and determined that the subcontractor was justified in walking from the project when it was not paid after 60 days per the contract. This result was the correct, if surprising. Why do I say surprising? Because I am always reluctant to recommend that a subcontractor walk from a job for non payment if it is possible to continue. This is not so much for legal reasons (not paying a sub is a clear breach of contract by a general contractor) but practical ones. The practical effect of walking from the job is that the subcontractor is put on the defensive. Instead of arguing later that it performed but was not paid, that subcontractor is put in the position of arguing that the general contractor cannot collect its completion related and other damages because it breached first. This is a more intuitively difficult argument and one that is not as strong as the first. Of course, all of this is contingent on the language in your contract (is there a “pay if paid” or language like that in the Indiana case?). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    December 09, 2019 —
    Last year, we reported that the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (“Dynamex”) adopted a new, pro-employment standard (the “ABC Standard”), which presumes a worker is an employee versus an independent contractor under California wage orders and regulations. Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”) has now been passed by the California Legislature and signed by Governor Newsom. Bill AB5 codifies the ABC Standard and brings increased costs, administrative duties, and legal risks for hiring parties on multiple fronts, including, but not limited to:
    • Payroll taxes;
    • Meals, breaks and overtime policies and enforcement and premium pay;
    • Benefits;
    • Leave and PTO policies, requirements and enforcement;
    • Wage order violations;
    • Labor Code violations and Private Attorney General Actions (“PAGA”) claims;
    • Unemployment insurance; and
    • Workers’ compensation coverage, claims, and premiums.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Donald A. Velez, Smith Currie
    Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com