• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida office building expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida housing expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida structural steel construction expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida retail construction expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida casino resort expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida hospital construction expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida multi family housing expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida landscaping construction expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida parking structure expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida tract home expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida condominium expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida townhome construction expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida Medical building expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida high-rise construction expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida institutional building expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida condominiums expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida production housing expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida custom home expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Port St. Lucie Florida
    Port St. Lucie Florida slope failure expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida contractor expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida expert witness windowsPort St. Lucie Florida building code expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida expert witness commercial buildingsPort St. Lucie Florida eifs expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida forensic architect
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Port St. Lucie, 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 Port St. Lucie 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

    Port St. Lucie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Port St. Lucie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Port St. Lucie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Port St. Lucie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Port St. Lucie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Port St. Lucie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Port St. Lucie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Port St. Lucie Florida

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Design Professional Asserting Copyright Infringement And Contributory Copyright Infringement

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Administration Seeks To Build New FBI HQ on Current D.C. Site

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

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

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

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

    Bill to Include Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Introduced in New Jersey

    Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Miami's Condo Craze Burns Out on Strong Dollar

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

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

    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    How AI Can Become a Design Adviser

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims
    Corporate Profile


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

    Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

    October 21, 2019 —
    This summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring. My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door. No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

    September 23, 2019 —
    A recent Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in, Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Owners Association, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743 (2019), strengthens Illinois’ precedent favoring construction defects as an occurrence under a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. Acuity also broadens an insurance carrier’s obligation to defend its insured against construction defect allegations. In Acuity, the court determined whether claims for construction defect filed against a subcontractor, triggered a duty to defend under a CGL policy. To make its determination, the court focused on the subcontractor’s scope of work. The court notes that a subcontractor normally contracts for a discrete scope of work on a project. Unlike a general contractor, who has control over or contractual obligations for all aspects of the project, a subcontractor does not have those board responsibilities. The court explained that “[f]rom the eyes of the subcontractor, the ‘project’ is limited to the scope of its own work, and the precise nature of any damage that might occur to something outside of that scope is as unknown or unforeseeable as damage to something entirely outside of the construction project.” Accordingly, the court in Acuity held that when a complaint alleges that a subcontractor’s negligence caused damage to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor’s scope of work, the allegations are enough to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the subcontractor under a CGL policy. The court’s decision in Acuity relied on a similar Illinois Appellate Court decision, Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 524 (Ill. App. 2011). In Larsen, the court reached a similar conclusion where a third-party complaint by a general contractor against a subcontractor alleged that the subcontractor’s improper window caulking caused water intrusion and property damage to other parts of the building. The court in Larsen held that because the complaint alleged not only construction defects, but also damage to other property outside the subcontractor’s scope of work, the insurer had a duty to defend the subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Cooper may be contacted at

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    November 24, 2019 —
    A new statute became effective July 28, 2019 that benefits contractors who have bid protests in Washington. A bid protest is the only way for disappointed bidders to challenge irregularities in the public bidding process on public works projects. Bid protests ensure the integrity of the public bidding system and are the contractor’s only remedy if its bid is improperly rejected or the winning bidder has errors in its bid that render it nonresponsive. Under the old law, a contractor was required to submit their bid protest within 2 days after the bid opening. The problem was that a contractor often does not know the basis to protest an award without seeing the other bids to determine whether the winning bid was responsive. Many owners provide copies of the bids if requested at the bid opening, but some contractors found that owners were refusing to provide copies of the other bids until after the 2-day protest period expired. The new law, which passed this last Legislative session[1], states that a contractor has two days after the bid opening to either submit a written protest or request copies of the competing bids. If the contractor requests copies of the competing bids from the owner, the contractor then has until 2 days after the competing bids are provided by the owner before the contractor is required to submit its bid protest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    January 06, 2020 —
    After a four-day trial, an Arizona federal jury found that Western Truck Insurance Services, Inc., an insurance broker, was negligent in selling Madison Alley Transportation and Logistics Inc. a business interruption policy with inadequate annual limits. Based on its finding of negligence, the jury determined that the broker was liable for $685,000 of $1,000,000 in damages suffered by Madison Alley as a result of a flood in its warehouse. The verdict and Complaint, filed in Arizona state court before the case was removed, can be found here and here. In June 2016, a subtenant in Madison Alley’s warehouse broke a sprinkler line while operating a forklift, causing the warehouse to flood. The warehouse was used to store and deliver retail display goods, and Madison Alley was unable to do business during the five months of repairs. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Madison Alley sought coverage under a business interruption policy it had purchased through Western Truck, but the policy’s $20,000 limit was not enough to cover its approximately $1,480,000 in losses. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Ms. Spatz may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    January 13, 2020 —
    Connecticut courts have been inundated with collapse cases the past couple of years due to insureds' living in homes that were constructed with defective concrete manufactured by J.J. Mottes Concrete Company. In a duo of cases, the Connecticut Supreme Court responded to a certified question from the U.S. District Court, holding that collapse required that the building be in imminent danger of falling down. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2019 Conn. LEXIS 339 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019). Plaintiffs had resided in their home since 2009. The home was built in 1993. In August 2015, after learning about the problem of crumbling basement walls affecting homes in their community due to cement manufactured by Mottes, they retained a structural engineer to evaluate their basement walls. The engineer found spider web cracking approximately 1/16 of an inch wide in the basement walls and three small vertical cracks. There were no visible signs of bowing. The engineer did not find that the walls were in imminent danger of falling down, but recommended that the basement walls be replaced. Plaintiffs submitted a claim under their homeowners policy to Liberty Mutual. The claim was denied. The policy did not define collapse, but stated that collapse did not include "settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion." 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

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2020

    December 09, 2019 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2020 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with five metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles
    • Tier 1
      • Insurance Law
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs
    • Tier 2
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
      Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

      Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

      December 02, 2019 —
      In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
      Ms. Byrd may be contacted by

      California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

      December 09, 2019 —
      Do you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance. Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at Mr. Krebs may be contacted at Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of