BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida tract home expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida institutional building expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida condominiums expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida high-rise construction expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida custom homes expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida landscaping construction expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida hospital construction expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida multi family housing expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida custom home expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida office building expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida condominium expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida retail construction expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida housing expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida townhome construction expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Medical building expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida casino resort expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida low-income housing expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida production housing expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida industrial building expert witness Sea Ranch Lakes Florida
    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida consulting general contractorSea Ranch Lakes Florida construction code expert witnessSea Ranch Lakes Florida roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSea Ranch Lakes Florida roofing construction expertSea Ranch Lakes Florida ada design expert witnessSea Ranch Lakes Florida construction forensic expert witnessSea Ranch Lakes Florida architect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Sea Ranch Lakes, 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 Sea Ranch Lakes 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

    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sea Ranch Lakes Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Sea Ranch Lakes Florida


    AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

    Insurer Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Under Unjust Enrichment Theory

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Picketing Threats

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners
    Corporate Profile

    SEA RANCH LAKES FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Sea Ranch Lakes, 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 Sea Ranch Lakes' 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
    Sea Ranch Lakes, Florida

    Thank You for 14 Consecutive Years of Legal Elite Elections

    December 29, 2020 —
    Thanks to the Virginia legal community that has continued to elect me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law Category for 14 years running. The 14 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category spans my time as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 10 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 10 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers that were elected along with me, see the 2020 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law. Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com Read the full story... 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 makenna.miller@ndlf.com Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    November 09, 2020 —
    On September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

    February 22, 2021 —
    On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note: Face Coverings OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart. Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal District Court Declines Invitation to Set Scope of Appraisal

    January 18, 2021 —
    In Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Harrods Eastbelt, Ltd., No. CV H-20-2405, 2020 WL 7632250 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas addressed a request to set the scope of an appraisal by requiring the appraisers to use a specific format for the appraisal. At issue was a claim for damages to three insured buildings allegedly damaged during Tropical Storm Imelda. The insurer had denied coverage based on the asserted lack of wind-created openings as required for coverage under the policy. Rather, the insurer took the position that the interior leaks were caused by a number of excluded causes including long-term weathering, wear and tear, age-related deterioration, ponding, and long-term leaks. In response to the denial of coverage, the insured invoked the appraisal provision of the policy which provided, among other things, that the “appraisers will state separately the value of the property and amount of loss.” Despite the language of the appraisal provision, the Insurer sought an order requiring the appraisers to state the amount of loss separately for each portion of the property in dispute and for each major building component including separate amounts of loss for roofs, exterior walls, windows, and interior water damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    October 05, 2020 —
    I’ve discussed the continuing litigation between White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. previously here at Construction Law Musings because the case was another reminder that your construction contract terms matter and will be interpreted strictly here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The prior opinion in this case from the Eastern District of Virginia court the Court considered the applicability of a liquidated damages provision. In the latest opinion from the Court (PDF) the Court looked at when and how any liquidated damages would be calculated. In its June 22, 2020 opinion, the Court put the issue as follows:
    White Oak’s motion for partial summary judgment presents a narrow issue: whether courts may consider the damages actually sustained by a party as a result of a contract breach when deciding if liquidated damages required by a contract “grossly exceed” a party’s actual damages.
    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

    AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

    February 01, 2021 —
    SUMMARY Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day. In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19. ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19. Reprinted courtesy of Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Viewpoint: Firms Should Begin to Analyze Lessons Learned in 2020

    January 04, 2021 —
    If there’s one phrase that describes 2020, it was not “business as usual.” How AEC firms fared last year depended upon their strategies for navigating an uncertain landscape. While we talk about finding a new normal, company leaders in 2021 will have to think more expansively about what they want that “normal” to look like. Reprinted courtesy of Rich Friedman, 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