BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida condominiums expert witness Vero Beach Florida production housing expert witness Vero Beach Florida custom home expert witness Vero Beach Florida landscaping construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Vero Beach Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Vero Beach Florida low-income housing expert witness Vero Beach Florida multi family housing expert witness Vero Beach Florida housing expert witness Vero Beach Florida structural steel construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida parking structure expert witness Vero Beach Florida condominium expert witness Vero Beach Florida industrial building expert witness Vero Beach Florida tract home expert witness Vero Beach Florida casino resort expert witness Vero Beach Florida institutional building expert witness Vero Beach Florida office building expert witness Vero Beach Florida townhome construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida custom homes expert witness Vero Beach Florida hospital construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida
    Vero Beach Florida engineering expert witnessVero Beach Florida construction code expert witnessVero Beach Florida construction expert witnessVero Beach Florida construction cost estimating expert witnessVero Beach Florida construction defect expert witnessVero Beach Florida consulting architect expert witnessVero Beach Florida expert witness roofing
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Vero Beach, 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 Vero Beach Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Highlands County Builders Association
    Local # 1022
    PO Box 7546
    Sebring, FL 33872
    Vero Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Tampa Bay Builders Association
    Local # 1036
    11242 Winthrop Main St
    Riverview, FL 33578

    Vero Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Manatee - Sarasota County
    Local # 1041
    8131 Lakewood Main St Ste 207
    Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202

    Vero Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Treasure Coast Builders Association
    Local # 1030
    6560 South Federal Highway
    Port Saint Lucie, FL 34952

    Vero Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Polk County Builders Association
    Local # 1028
    2232 Heritage Dr
    Lakeland, FL 33801

    Vero Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders & CA of Brevard
    Local # 1012
    1500 W Eau Gallie Blvd Ste A
    Melbourne, FL 32935

    Vero Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Charlotte-DeSoto Building Industry Association
    Local # 1002
    17984 Toledo Blade Blvd
    Port Charlotte, FL 33948

    Vero Beach Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Vero Beach Florida


    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Doing Construction Lead Programs the Right Way

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

    A Race to the Finish on Oroville Dam Spillway Fix

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Construction Continues To Boom Across The South

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    Yes, Indeedy. Competitive Bidding Not Required for School District Lease-Leasebacks

    Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

    Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    Construction Defect Lawsuits Hinted for Dublin, California

    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)

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level
    Corporate Profile

    VERO BEACH FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Vero Beach, 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 Vero Beach'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
    Vero Beach, Florida

    Brown Act Modifications in Response to Coronavirus Outbreak

    March 30, 2020 —
    Gov. Gavin Newsom waived certain provisions of the Bagley-Keene Act and Ralph M. Brown Act to make state and local legislative bodies safer while allowing California public entities to conduct business. In an effort to promote social distancing and slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic Gov. Newsom issued Executive Order N-25-20. The Executive Order authorizes state and local legislative bodies, such as school district and county office of education governing boards, to more easily hold public meetings by way of teleconference. The order took further steps to make public meetings accessible to the public via electronic means, including telephone. The Brown Act generally requires legislative body members, a clerk, or other personnel to be physically present in a meeting in order to participate or establish a quorum. Executive Order N-25-20 temporarily eliminates this requirement. Furthermore, standard Brown Act requirements such as publicly noticing the teleconference location for each meeting participant is also suspended. Clearly, this is an attempt to protect the public, as well as Board members and staff, by temporarily discouraging large group settings in the conduct of the public’s business. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory J. Rolen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
    Mr. Rolen may be contacted at grolen@hbblaw.com

    Five LEED and Green Construction Trends to Watch in 2020

    January 27, 2020 —
    To succeed in any field, you can never stop learning—especially in the green construction industry where standards and technology are always growing and changing. Here are a few of the exciting trends in LEED certification and green construction learned about during this year’s Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, which is the largest annual event for green building professionals in the world. 1. More Transparency About Products In 2020, the product sustainability information provided by manufacturers will continue becoming more transparent and accessible. Manufacturers are coming to the table and presenting more useful information on environmental and health impacts, conducting life cycle analyses and making the information available for the design and construction marketplace. Although this means even more information for construction and design teams to take into account when planning green construction projects, it’s a definite positive. We’re starting to see the actual environmental performance getting taken into account in product specification. Reprinted courtesy of Tommy Linstroth, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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 kab@sdvlaw.com

    New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here. The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    December 22, 2019 —
    White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law and Media Law. Our Boston, New York and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience. National Tier 1 Insurance Law National Tier 3 Media Law Metropolitan Tier 1 Boston Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Delaware Product Liability Litigation – Defendants New Jersey Labor Law – Management Philadelphia Commercial Litigation Insurance Law Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Metropolitan Tier 2 Boston Insurance Law Delaware Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants New Jersey Employment Law - Management Litigation - Labor & Employment Philadelphia Bet-the-Company Litigation Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants Media Law Real Estate Law Tax Law Trusts & Estates Law Metropolitan Tier 3 New York City Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Philadelphia Appellate Practice Construction Law First Amendment Law Litigation – Construction Litigation – Labor & Employment Patent Law Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    December 09, 2019 —
    The insurer denied the insured contractor's claim seeking a defense for faulty workmanship based upon the ongoing operations exclusion. PJR Constr. of N.J. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D. N. J. July 31, 2019). PJR Construction was the general contractor to build a swim club and pavilion building for Cambridge Real Property, LLC. PJR began construction on May 29, 2012, and was to complete the construction by March 1, 2013. The project took much longer than anticipated. PJR was denied access to the site on November 13, 2014. Cambridge contended PJR tolerated shoddy workmanship and breached the terms of the contract documents. Cambridge estimated that the project was between 55% and 74.3% complete. PJR and Cambridge went to arbitration. PJR sought a defense from the insurers. Coverage was denied based upon exclusions j (5) and j (6). Exclusion j (5), which the court referred to as the "Ongoing Operations Exclusion," provided the policy did not apply to,
    Property Damage to . . . [t]hat particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the property damage arises out of those operations.
    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

    Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss

    September 30, 2019 —
    The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently rejected a claim by a group of insurance companies (“Underwriters”) against American Global Maritime Inc. for more than $500 million that the Underwriters paid the named insured under an Off-Shore Construction Risk insurance policy for losses resulting from the an alleged off-shore oil rig failure. The action arose out of alleged construction defects related to Chevron’s “Big Foot” oil-drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron hired American Global to be the marine warranty surveyor responsible for reviewing and certifying the project’s specifications and materials. American Global issued the certificate of approval required for the project to proceed; however, during the attempted installation of the platform in 2015, it was alleged that parts from the structure fell to the sea floor. The Underwriters paid more than $500 million in connection with the incident under an Off-Shore Construction insurance policy they had issued to Chevron. After paying the claim, the Underwriters filed a negligence action against American Global and other contractors involved in the project. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews & Kurth and Daniel Hentschel , Hunton Andrews & Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    January 20, 2020 —
    In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of