• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Micco Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Micco Florida industrial building expert witness Micco Florida housing expert witness Micco Florida custom homes expert witness Micco Florida townhome construction expert witness Micco Florida landscaping construction expert witness Micco Florida casino resort expert witness Micco Florida condominiums expert witness Micco Florida hospital construction expert witness Micco Florida tract home expert witness Micco Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Micco Florida high-rise construction expert witness Micco Florida multi family housing expert witness Micco Florida parking structure expert witness Micco Florida low-income housing expert witness Micco Florida institutional building expert witness Micco Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Micco Florida Medical building expert witness Micco Florida retail construction expert witness Micco Florida production housing expert witness Micco Florida custom home expert witness Micco Florida
    Micco Florida construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessMicco Florida construction expert witness public projectsMicco Florida consulting architect expert witnessMicco Florida OSHA expert witness constructionMicco Florida construction claims expert witnessMicco Florida delay claim expert witnessMicco Florida construction defect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Micco, 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 Micco 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

    Micco Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Micco Florida

    Standard of Care

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    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)

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    Thank You to Virginia Super Lawyers

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Baltimore Project Pushes To Meet Federal Deadline

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    The National Building Museum’s A-Mazing Showpiece

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause
    Corporate Profile


    The Micco, 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 Micco'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
    Micco, Florida

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    November 18, 2019 —
    The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) continues to modify the way employers, unions and employees view and relate to each other in the workplace. In two decisions right before Labor Day, the Board strengthened employer rights in their workplaces, while at the same time making life for their union counterparts more difficult. On August 23, 2019, the Board revisited the issue of whether an employer must grant access to the off-duty employees of an onsite contractor so they can engage in Section 7 activities on the employer’s property. In general, Section 7 activities consist of employees acting together to improve their pay and working conditions, which constitute fundamental rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). In Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center, the San Antonio-based performing arts center, the Tobin Center, owned the Center as well as grounds that abutted the famed San Antonio River Walk. The Tobin Center housed three resident companies, one of which was the Ballet San Antonio with whom it had a licensor-licensee agreement. In addition to plays, movies and other productions, the Tobin Center hosted the San Antonio Symphony (the Symphony) to perform for 22 weeks of the year. The Ballet San Antonio also occasionally utilized the Symphony for live musical performances at its ballets. When, however, the Ballet San Antonio decided to use recorded music for a particular production, off-duty employees of the Symphony protested by leafletting the public on the Tobin Center property. The leaflets advised the public of this decision and urged that they “DEMAND LIVE MUSIC!” Their protests were not directed at the property owner, who denied them access to its property. Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP and Robert Pettigrew, White and Williams LLP Mr. Baker may be contacted at Mr. Pettigrew may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    December 16, 2019 —
    Amidst the constraints of weight limits, a seawall, a waterfront restaurant and high-voltage power poles, crews from ICI Interwest Construction Inc. and heavy mover Oxbo Mega Transport Solutions positioned a $20 million, 282-ft-long pedestrian and utility bridge in place this fall along the Everett, Washington, waterfront. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    January 06, 2020 —
    White and Williams is pleased to announce that John Balaguer, Managing Partner of the Wilmington office, Partner Stephen Milewski, and Counsel Dana Spring Monzo have been chosen by their peers as Delaware Today's 2019 "Top Lawyers." The annual list recognizes John, Steve and Dana in the practice area of Medical Malpractice, Defense. Delaware Today conducts an annual survey of the 4,900 members of the Delaware State Bar Association to identify top lawyers in specific practice areas. The magazine’s editors compile the results to create the annual Top Lawyers list, which is published in the November issue. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys John Balaguer, Stephen Milewski and Dana Monzo Mr. Balaguer may be contacted at Mr. Milewski may be contacted at Ms. Monzo may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy

    March 02, 2020 —
    Most professional liability polices include some form of a “related claims” provision that generally provides where two or more claims or wrongful acts are causally or logically related, they will be deemed to constitute a single claim. Importantly, these provisions typically provide that those “claims” are then deemed to have been “first made” at the time the first claim or act was committed for purposes of the policy’s claims-made and reporting requirements. Understandably, these provisions provide insurers and insureds with some clarity over the number and timing of claims that could involve multiple errors or omissions, and potentially aggregate all related claims or acts into a single policy period. While reasonable in principle, application of such provisions, especially involving large scale design and construction projects, is not always so easy. Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 18-cv-61842 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2019), involved such an insurance coverage dispute with a design project gone wrong. DeRose Design Consultants, Inc. (“DeRose”) was hired as a structural engineer to design “ice tanks” to store and chill water for an energy efficient air conditioning facility constructed on the campus of Nova Southeastern University (“NSU”). An early water test on one of the tanks determined the walls of the ice tank deflected, leaked, and cracked when the tank was filled with water. DeRose later discovered that the problems with the ice tank were caused by a structural design error. The first errors were discovered in early 2009, and reported under DeRose’s professional liability policy with Evanston. DeRose then created a remedial design to repair the tanks, which involved strengthening repairs. Additional leaking and an early indication of corrosion involving the Remedial Design arose as early as October 25, 2009. Several field investigation reports were prepared in 2011 and 2012 confirming these issues with the Remedial Design. A third report in February 2012, however, identified a new error involving the concrete slab under the ice tanks also designed by DeRose. The third report concluded that the concreate slab was overstressed and could not handle the loads of the ice tanks. The report also concluded, however, that the design defects in the concrete slab were “unrelated” to the original design defect of the ice tank walls or Remedial Design. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    November 04, 2019 —
    In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker. East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion. As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    October 07, 2019 —
    Success in construction litigation often turns less on counsel’s ability to craft legal arguments and more on counsel’s ability to gather, master and present the often complex set of facts underlying the case. In construction matters, most of the key facts are found in documents: contract documents, drawings, plans and specifications, schedules, submittals, progress reports, daily logs, change orders, invoices and payment records. Nowadays, these documents will almost certainly be created, exchanged and stored electronically; many will never exist in hard copy. As such, timely collection, organization and analysis of electronically stored information (ESI) is crucially important in construction litigation. The construction industry has always involved a large quantity of records. Today, the majority of those records exist only as ESI: Design professionals use computer-aided design (CAD) software to create construction plans. Construction managers use Primavera or similar software to create schedules and workflows. Estimators use job cost control programs. Innovative firms capture digital photos of the project, from mobilization through the punch process. Because ESI is created and exchanged at a higher rate than hard-copy documents, ESI has facilitated a dramatic increase in the volume of records associated with construction projects. Further compounding the increase is the proliferation of mobile devices. With a smartphone in every pocket, ESI creation has moved out of the home office and the site trailer and onto the site itself. As the volume of ESI expands, so too does the time and expense associated with storing, processing, reviewing and producing these records. This article will cover strategies for balancing time and expense with the requirements of the rules and the needs of the case. Reprinted courtesy of Pepper Hamilton LLP attorneys Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman and Michael I. Frankel Mr. Gallagher may be contacted at Ms. Lehman may be contacted at Mr. Frankel may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    February 03, 2020 —
    As we kick off the new decade, we wanted to share the top five most-read articles of 2019 from Gravel2Gavel. The most-read blog posts covered 2019 real estate and construction industry trends ranging from affordable housing to the new State Bill 35 (SB 35) to sustainability in modern real estate. Our posts provided deep insight and detailed case studies, and summarized hot topics that addressed the legal implications and exciting disruptions that are affecting the industry. We hope you enjoy the roundup:
    1. Assessing SB 35—Success or Failure? by Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen Robert, Alex and Matt examined the newly implemented SB 35 and highlighted real examples of SB 35 in action.
    2. Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language by William S. Hale, P.E. Bill Hale encouraged readers to update their California release provisions to include Amended Section 1542 Language, which ensures that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

    March 09, 2020 —
    The design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project. The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway. In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at