BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Sneads Florida production housing expert witness Sneads Florida multi family housing expert witness Sneads Florida condominiums expert witness Sneads Florida structural steel construction expert witness Sneads Florida tract home expert witness Sneads Florida institutional building expert witness Sneads Florida casino resort expert witness Sneads Florida housing expert witness Sneads Florida hospital construction expert witness Sneads Florida high-rise construction expert witness Sneads Florida low-income housing expert witness Sneads Florida townhome construction expert witness Sneads Florida landscaping construction expert witness Sneads Florida custom home expert witness Sneads Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Sneads Florida custom homes expert witness Sneads Florida industrial building expert witness Sneads Florida retail construction expert witness Sneads Florida condominium expert witness Sneads Florida Medical building expert witness Sneads Florida parking structure expert witness Sneads Florida
    Sneads Florida multi family design expert witnessSneads Florida construction expert testimonySneads Florida structural engineering expert witnessesSneads Florida construction code expert witnessSneads Florida building envelope expert witnessSneads Florida expert witness commercial buildingsSneads Florida construction safety expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Sneads, 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 Sneads 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

    Sneads Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sneads Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sneads Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sneads Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sneads Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sneads Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sneads Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Sneads Florida


    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs

    Hotel Claims Construction Defect Could Have Caused Collapse

    The Drought Is Sinking California

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Condo Building Hits Highest Share of Canada Market Since 1971

    The Irresistible Urge to Build Cities From Scratch

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    World’s Biggest Crane Lifts Huge Steel Ring at U.K. Nuclear Site

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

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

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

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

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges
    Corporate Profile

    SNEADS FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Sneads, Florida Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Sneads, Florida

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at hdh@sdvlaw.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

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    October 12, 2020 —
    Late last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.” The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2021 Real Estate Trends: New Year, New Reality—A Day of Reckoning for Borrowers and Tenants

    February 08, 2021 —
    On the one-year anniversary of China’s Wuhan lockdown, COVID-19 has become a part of everyday life and as we enter the new year, real estate borrowers and lenders alike will need to understand this new normal and face the reality that is fast approaching. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the United States, many state and local governments instituted eviction moratoria and other protections for real estate tenants and borrowers. These protections created a window of opportunity for tenants and borrowers to negotiate reasonable solutions with their respective landlords and lenders regarding rent and debt payments amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This temporary period of restricted remedies also allowed courts to analyze legal arguments on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts the real estate industry. However, with court rulings forthcoming and many of these eviction protections set to expire in 2021, landlords and tenants as well as borrowers and lenders will be forced to have discussions regarding the realities of their industry and their ability to pay their respective rents and mortgages amid the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Throughout 2020, lenders and landlords were forced to accommodate workout negotiations as their ability to evict or foreclose upon defaulting tenants or borrowers was prohibited. Many commercial real estate parties were able to come to agreements on what borrowers and tenants were able to pay, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their respective industries. As the legal protections are rolled back and the leverage shifts back into the hands of the lenders and landlords, we will likely see a trend of aggressive landlords and lenders and an increased number of evictions and foreclosures, especially in industries that are most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic: retail and hospitality. Reprinted courtesy of Robert J. Grados, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Grados may be contacted at robert.grados@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    October 26, 2020 —
    On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

    September 21, 2020 —
    As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside. With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability. One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Clare, Pillsbury
    Mr. Clare may be contacted at jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    February 01, 2021 —
    The U.S. Energy Dept. has cancelled a $13-billion, 10-year contract awarded just a few months ago to a team led by BWXT Technical Services and Fluor Federal Services to manage millions of gallons of radioactive waste stored underground at its Hanford, Wash., former weapons site—confirming plans for a major scope expansion and lengthy reprocurement but sharing few details. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    January 04, 2021 —
    Introduction The right to offset refers to the common sense ability to reduce or eliminate your payment obligations to a party who owes you money on another contract. With offsets, common law largely tracks common sense. The right of offset is recognized by statute and court decisions in many states as well as under federal law and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The right to offset can also be established in the contract or subcontract. But like many things that may seem simple, the right to offset can easily become complex. This article provides an overview of the extent and limits of the right to offset varies from state to state and with federal government contracts about the extent and limits of the right of offset. Construction trust fund statutes add another layer of complications. These variations may not be obvious or intuitive, but they have a tremendous impact on your right to get paid or your right to withhold payment. Because of the variations, you must always confirm the law applicable to your contract or subcontract, which may not be where the project or you are located. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com