BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Winters California custom home expert witness Winters California casino resort expert witness Winters California office building expert witness Winters California multi family housing expert witness Winters California condominium expert witness Winters California tract home expert witness Winters California condominiums expert witness Winters California mid-rise construction expert witness Winters California housing expert witness Winters California high-rise construction expert witness Winters California townhome construction expert witness Winters California Medical building expert witness Winters California hospital construction expert witness Winters California institutional building expert witness Winters California low-income housing expert witness Winters California structural steel construction expert witness Winters California parking structure expert witness Winters California production housing expert witness Winters California landscaping construction expert witness Winters California Subterranean parking expert witness Winters California industrial building expert witness Winters California
    Winters California construction expert witnessesWinters California building expertWinters California construction scheduling expert witnessWinters California expert witness roofingWinters California soil failure expert witnessWinters California testifying construction expert witnessWinters California consulting engineers
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Winters, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Winters California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    California Building Industry Association
    Local # 0500
    1215 K Street Ste 1200
    Sacramento, CA 95814

    Winters California Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North State Building Industry Association
    Local # 0540
    1536 Eureka Rd
    Roseville, CA 95661

    Winters California Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of the Bay Area - Northern Division
    Local # 0538
    PO Box 7100
    Santa Rosa, CA 95407
    Winters California Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of the Delta
    Local # 0513
    315 N San Joaquin St Ste 2
    Stockton, CA 95202

    Winters California Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
    Local # 0538
    101 Ygnacio Valley Rd # 210
    Walnut Creek, CA 94596

    Winters California Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of the Bay Area - Eastern Division
    Local # 0538
    PO Box 5160
    San Ramon, CA 94583
    Winters California Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of Central California
    Local # 0536
    900 H St Ste E2
    Modesto, CA 95354

    Winters California Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Winters California


    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    How to Protect the High-Tech Home

    Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

    The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

    CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?
    Corporate Profile

    WINTERS CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Winters, California 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
    Winters, California

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    May 20, 2019 —
    If a lis pendens is recorded and the lis pendens is NOT founded on a duly recorded instrument (e.g., mortgage) or a statute (e.g., construction lien), a lis pendens bond should be recorded. The lis pendens bond should cover prospective damages associated with the wrongful / unjustified recording of a lis pendens that were suffered by the property owner. The reason being is that the lis pendens has an effect on the title to the property as long as the lis pendens is recorded. Damages could stem from a decline in the market value of the property, continued upkeep and maintenance of the property, and there may also be (and, really, should be) consideration for loss of investment return associated with the equity in that property. 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

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    April 22, 2019 —
    A partisan squabble over funds to help Puerto Rico continue its long recovery and rebuilding from two hurricanes in 2017 has tied up a wide-ranging spending package on Capitol Hill. At stake in the fight are hundreds of millions of dollars for reconstruction and related work around the U.S. Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    February 27, 2019 —
    Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    April 17, 2019 —
    Tennessee highway officials believe an impact from a vehicle’s oversized load is likely to blame for the April 1 partial collapse of a ramp structure at the I-75/I-24 interchange in Chattanooga. The impact caused the outer box beam and railing of the 148-ft-long bridge’s nearly 51-ft main span to fall onto an access ramp, injuring a motorist whose vehicle collided with the debris. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    June 10, 2019 —
    In In re City of Dickinson, 568 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2019), the Supreme Court of Texas recently assessed whether a client’s emails with its counsel were subject to disclosure after the client was designated as a testifying expert witness. In re City of Dickinson involved a coverage dispute between a policyholder and its insurer. The policyholder moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation, essentially alleging that its insurer did not pay all damages caused by Hurricane Ike. In responding to the motion, the insurer relied upon an affidavit by one of its employees, a claims examiner, that included both factual testimony and expert witness testimony. The policyholder subsequently filed a motion to compel, seeking the production of emails between the claims examiner and the insurer’s counsel that were generated while the affidavit was being drafted. The emails contained numerous revisions of the affidavit. The insurer objected, asserting that the emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were generated in the course of the rendition of legal services. The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering production. Ultimately, after a series of appeals, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the documents in dispute were subject to discovery. In resolving this issue, the court examined the rules pertaining to expert disclosures. As noted by the court, the rules authorize the production of all documents provided to a testifying expert witness. Thus, the court was faced with determining if its rules required the disclosure of documents that are also subject to the attorney-client privilege. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    February 18, 2019 —
    The California Legislature introduced more than 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session that became law effective January 1, 2019, many of which address employment issues facing California employers in the construction industry. Below we have summarized some of the more important laws (the summary titles are live links to the text of the new law), and employers are urged to protect their companies by updating contracts, policies, and/or practices for compliance. The following is for general knowledge, and we recommend you consult with your attorney for specific legal advice. AB 1565 – Contractor Wage Liability: AB 1565 repeals the provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions, including interest owed. In the past, a direct contractor could withhold “disputed” sums owed to a subcontractor if the subcontractor failed to provide “information” about their and lower-tier subcontractors’ payroll records. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
    Smith Currie attorneys may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    April 03, 2019 —
    A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
    Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com