BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida industrial building expert witness Vero Beach Florida high-rise construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida institutional building expert witness Vero Beach Florida casino resort expert witness Vero Beach Florida condominiums expert witness Vero Beach Florida townhome construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida low-income housing expert witness Vero Beach Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Vero Beach Florida condominium expert witness Vero Beach Florida landscaping construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida custom homes expert witness Vero Beach Florida parking structure expert witness Vero Beach Florida custom home expert witness Vero Beach Florida production housing expert witness Vero Beach Florida tract home expert witness Vero Beach Florida housing expert witness Vero Beach Florida Medical building expert witness Vero Beach Florida hospital construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Vero Beach Florida structural steel construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida retail construction expert witness Vero Beach Florida
    Vero Beach Florida testifying construction expert witnessVero Beach Florida construction expert witnessVero Beach Florida consulting engineersVero Beach Florida fenestration expert witnessVero Beach Florida construction project management expert witnessesVero Beach Florida expert witness structural engineerVero Beach Florida architectural expert witness
    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


    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    The Construction Industry's Health Kick

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    My Construction Law Wish List

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January

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

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    Brown Orders Mandatory Water Curbs for California Drought

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    The ARC and The Covenants

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting

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

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law
    Corporate Profile

    VERO BEACH FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Vero Beach, 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
    Vero Beach, Florida

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    October 21, 2019 —
    One of the most effective collection procedures available to subcontractors and suppliers to California Construction projects is the “stop payment notice” procedure found under California Civil Code sections 9350 – 9364. Under this procedure, the unpaid subcontractor or supplier may serve the stop payment notice on the public entity and the direct or “prime” contractor and cause the public entity to withhold from the direct contractor 125% of the funds identified in the stop payment notice. Thereafter, funds will not generally be released unless the parties reach a settlement agreement or the issue is decided through litigation, arbitration or mediation. There is however an alternative procedure available to direct contractors to expedite the determination of whether a stop payment notice is valid and to possibly obtain an early release of the funds withheld by the public entity. This “summary proceeding” process could result in release of funds to the direct contractor in less than 30 days. The summary proceeding can also be challenged by the unpaid subcontractor or supplier. All public works contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should be aware of the process. The process for direct contractors to release a stop payment notice and for subcontractors and suppliers to challenge the process works as follows: After a California stop payment notice has been served and the public entity has withheld funds accordingly, the direct contractor may challenge the stop payment notice by serving an “affidavit” (basically a sworn statement showing why the stop notice is not valid) on the public entity, demanding that the public entity release all funds withheld. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the public entity will serve the subcontractor or supplier who served the stop payment notice with a copy of the affidavit, along with a “demand for release of funds”. If the stop payment notice claimant does not respond with a “counter-affidavit” by the date stated on the notice sent by the public entity (“not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days after service on the claimant of a copy of the affidavit”), then the public entity will be within its rights to release the withheld funds to the direct contractor, and the stop payment notice claimant will relinquish its stop payment notice rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Another Reason to Always Respond (or Hensel Phelps Wins One!)

    September 16, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. is best known as the company that got whipsawed between indemnity rules and the lack of a statute of limitations for state agencies. However a recent case out of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave them a win and illustrates, once again, that failing to appear or respond is never a good option. In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial LLC, the Alexandria, VA federal court looked at an arbitration award entered for Hensel Phelps and against Perdomo under the Federal Arbitration Act. The facts of the case showed that Perdomo “double dipped” into the deep end of refusal or failure to respond. First of all, the contract required arbitration and any award was enforceable in any state or federal court having jurisdiction. Based upon this language, Hensel Phelps filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Perdomo and its surety, AAA sent notice to both Perdomo and Surety, and. . . neither responded or appeared at what was ultimately 8 days of hearings. After hearing Hensel Phelp’s evidence and the total lack of defenses from Perdomo and Surety, the panel issued an award in favor of Hensel Phelps, finding Perdomo LLC in default and holding Perdomo LLC and Allied World jointly and severally liable in the amount of $2,958,209.71 and Perdomo LLC individually liable in the amount of $7,917,666.30 plus interest. 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

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    January 06, 2020 —
    The constant political back-and-forth in British Columbia, Canada, over how to deal with an aging George Massey Tunnel, opened in 1959, has ping-ponged from uncertainty to a $3.5 billion, 10-lane bridge, back to uncertainty, to no bridge and now to an eight-lane submerged tunnel. Tim Newcomb, 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

    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

    December 02, 2019 —
    On July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    February 10, 2020 —
    On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Construction Continues To Boom Across The South

    September 09, 2019 —
    Contractors reported revenue growth of $2 billion in 2018 and are optimistic heading into the second half of 2019. The looming threat of a downturn, though, weighs heavy on some industry leaders’ minds as does the constant threat of workforce shortages. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    December 22, 2019 —
    Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    October 21, 2019 —
    In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019). When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com