BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing expert witness Westville Florida tract home expert witness Westville Florida multi family housing expert witness Westville Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Westville Florida casino resort expert witness Westville Florida high-rise construction expert witness Westville Florida Medical building expert witness Westville Florida townhome construction expert witness Westville Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Westville Florida landscaping construction expert witness Westville Florida custom homes expert witness Westville Florida industrial building expert witness Westville Florida hospital construction expert witness Westville Florida housing expert witness Westville Florida institutional building expert witness Westville Florida office building expert witness Westville Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Westville Florida custom home expert witness Westville Florida structural steel construction expert witness Westville Florida parking structure expert witness Westville Florida condominium expert witness Westville Florida condominiums expert witness Westville Florida
    Westville Florida construction code expert witnessWestville Florida architecture expert witnessWestville Florida construction forensic expert witnessWestville Florida contractor expert witnessWestville Florida construction claims expert witnessWestville Florida architect expert witnessWestville Florida delay claim expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Westville, 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 Westville 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

    Westville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Westville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Westville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Westville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Westville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Westville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Westville Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Westville Florida


    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    Four Common Construction Contracts

    Flood Insurance Claim Filed in State Court Properly Dismissed

    Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

    Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

    General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

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

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    Digitalizing the Hospital Design Requirements Process

    CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Is Arbitration Always the Answer?

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    Plans Go High Tech

    Standard of Care

    Florida Accuses Pool Contractor of Violating Laws

    Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

    Defining Construction Defects

    Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    School for Building Trades Helps Fill Need for Skilled Workers

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019
    Corporate Profile

    WESTVILLE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Westville, 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Westville'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
    Westville, Florida

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    October 07, 2019 —
    Last month a California Court of Appeals clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, to be entitled to a trial on the amount of goodwill lost. Yum Yum Donuts operated a shop in Los Angeles that was subject to eminent domain by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to make way for light railway track. At trial, Yum Yum sought loss of goodwill as part of its condemnation damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. At trial the MTA’s expert testified that Yum Yum could have reduced its goodwill loss if it relocated to one of three alternative locations rather than simply closing the shop. But the expert conceded that even if Yum Yum had relocated, it would have lost some goodwill. Yum Yum refused to relocate, arguing that its relocation costs would render the move unprofitable. The trial court found that Yum Yum’s failure to mitigate its damages barred Yum Yum from having a jury trial to recover any goodwill damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Josh Cohen, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jcohen@wendel.com

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    November 04, 2019 —
    “Claims-made policies are common in the professional liability insurance market. They “differ from traditional ‘occurrence’-based policies primarily based upon the scope of the risk against which they insure.” With claims-made policies, coverage is provided only where the act giving rise to coverage “is discovered and brought to the attention of the insurance company during the period of the policy.” In contrast, coverage is provided under an occurrence-based policy if the act giving rise to coverage “occurred during the period of the policy, regardless of the date a claim is actually made against the insured.” “The essence, then, of a claims-made policy is notice to the carrier within the policy period.” Crowely Maritime Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2019 WL 3294003 (11thCir. 2019) The recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal opinion in Crowely Maritime Corp. discussed the distinction between a claims-made insurance policy and an occurrence-based insurance policy. Professional liability policies are generally claims-made policies whereas commercial general liability policies are generally occurrence-based policies. While this opinion does not involve a construction matter, the case did concern the definition of a “claim” in a claims-made policy and whether such claim was timely reported to the insurer within the discovery period / extended reporting period. 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

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    September 03, 2019 —
    In In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps. In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amy E. Vulpio, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Vulpio may be contacted at vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    January 27, 2020 —
    In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here. The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed. Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points. 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

    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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    November 12, 2019 —
    The AEC industry has a responsibility and mandate when it comes to addressing significant global challenges in the sector and improving operational practice. Professionals such as Lorenzo Villaggi, Senior Research Scientist at The Living, believe that new design technologies hold the key to better-performing built environments. “Although I’m trained as an architect, I’ve always had an interest in how technology can interact with and have an impact on design processes,” says Lorenzo. “I’ve developed a familiarity with advanced computational tools and eventually developed my own.” These computational tools are primarily designed to assist with the generation of design options and improve performance analysis. They range from small systems that help users design faster, all the way to elaborate software that can perform complex, mission-critical tasks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    December 09, 2019 —
    The French government’s anti-trust agency has fined the national architects’ registration group and four regional councils $1.64 million (€1.5 million) for price-fixing design fees on public works. Reprinted courtesy of 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

    AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

    February 18, 2020 —
    Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.
    1. The subcontract is in writing;
    2. The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
    3. If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
    4. The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
    5. The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
    6. The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
    7. The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
    The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply. You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com