• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California production housing expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California structural steel construction expert witness Anaheim California retail construction expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California condominium expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California custom homes expert witness Anaheim California multi family housing expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, 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 Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501

    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    No Hiring Surge by Homebuilders Says Industry Group

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    A Few Green Building Notes

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

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

    NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    Communicate with the Field to Nip Issues in the Bud

    Meet Some Key Players in 2020 Environmental Litigation

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    BIM Legal Liabilities: Not That Different

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    What Made the Savannah Harbor Upgrade So Complicated?

    User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

    Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from approximately 5000 general contracting and design related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to construction claims professionals seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Utilizing captive assets which comprise construction delay claims experts, registered design professionals, professional engineers, and credentailed construction consultants, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California construction defect expert witnessAnaheim California building envelope expert witnessAnaheim California consulting engineersAnaheim California construction cost estimating expert witnessAnaheim California building code compliance expert witnessAnaheim California construction project management expert witnessesAnaheim California civil engineer expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

    April 06, 2020 —
    Most property policies provide coverage for property damage only when there is "direct physical loss" to covered property. Early indications are that COVID-19 remains on surfaces. The duration can last from a few hours to three weeks, depending on the type of surface material. If an employee is infected and the store or restaurant must closed because the virus may rest on surfaces within the building, is there direct physical loss, even though the building structure itself is unharmed? To answer this question, cases from jurisdictions outside Hawaii may provide guidance. In a case from Louisiana, the homeowner had to move out of her home when excessive levels of organic lead were discovered in the kitchen, living room, master bedroom, and attic. Widder v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 82 So. 3d 294 (La. Ct. App. 2011). The insurer denied coverage because there was no direct physical loss. The trial court agreed; since the home was still intact, no direct physical loss had occurred, so there was no coverage under the policy. The appellate court reversed. It compared the presence of inorganic lead in the home to cases that found a direct physical loss from the existence of Chinese drywall, from which gaseous fumes were released, rendering the home unusable or uninhabitable. Physical damage was not necessary. What if smoke from a nearby wildfire fills an outdoor theater, forcing cancellation of performances and loss of business income? This was the situation in Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Inc. Co., 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 74450 (D. Ore. Jun 7, 2016). Wildfires in the area caused smoke, soot, and ash to accumulate on the surface of seats and concrete ground of the open-air theater. The air quality was poor, but no federal, state or local agency ordered cancellation of the performances. Further, the theater did not suffer any permanent or structural damage to its property. The insurer denied coverage, contending that the loss or damage must be structural to the building itself. After all, the smoke in the air at the theater did not require any repairs to the structure of the property. The court disagreed. The theater sustained "physical loss or damage to property" when the wildfire smoke infiltrated the theater and rendered it unusable for its intended purpose. The decision in Oregon Shakespeare Festival was eventually vacated by a joint stipulation of the parties. Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins.Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33208 (D. Ore. March 6, 2017), but the reasoning is still sound. 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

    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    February 10, 2020 —
    Applying Nevada law, the Federal District Court in Florida found that the general contractor was entitled to a defense of claims based upon alleged faulty workmanship of a subcontractor. KB Home Jacksonville LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151235 (M.D. Fla. Sept 5, 2019). KB Home completed six residential developments utilizing various subcontractors. One subcontractor was Florida State Plastering, LLC (FSP) for installing stucco. Eighty-eight complaints against KB Home implicated FSP's stucco work. Plaintiffs alleged that the stucco subcontractor's work suffered from construction defects, causing damages not only to the exterior stucco, but also the underling wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, wood sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and other property. Ironshore insured FSP under a CGL policy. KB Home was an additional insured for liability for property damage caused by "your work." KB Home was also insured under its own CGL policy with Liberty Mutual. Both insurers refused to defend. 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

    First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

    April 20, 2020 —
    On Monday, Oceana Grill, a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, became the first to file a lawsuit over coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. The lawsuit, styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al. (La. Dist. Court, Orleans Parish), seeks a declaratory judgment that an “all risks” property insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s of London must cover losses resulting from the closure of the restaurant following an order by the Governor of Louisiana restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans’ order closing restaurants. The Lloyds’ policy, like most first-party property insurance policies, affords coverage for business- interruption losses and contains an “extension of coverage in the event of the businesses closure by order of Civil Authority.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that “the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, “[t]he policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.” As the complaint implies, an important issue will be whether the novel coronavirus constitutes the requisite “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy. Understanding COVID-19, its manner of transmission and its ability to live beyond a host organism helps support a conclusion that COVID-19 does indeed amount to the required direct physical loss or damage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at Mr. Levine may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How to Build a Coronavirus Hospital in Ten Days

    April 20, 2020 —
    If the coronavirus pandemic continues to spread in the United States as it has in other countries, drastic expansions of hospital and quarantine facility capacity are likely to be necessary. In the hard-hit Seattle area, several temporary facilities are already under construction, including a 200-bed temporary quarantine and isolation center built on a soccer field. China’s response to the initial outbreak in the city of Wuhan demonstrates how rapidly authorities can add capacity in an emergency. As thousands of citizens became ill with COVID-19, China built two hospitals in Wuhan over the span of just days. Time-lapse videos such as this one show how remarkably quickly the hospitals were built. Construction on the Huoshenshan Hospital (shown in the prior linked video) began on January 23 and finished eight days later. A second hospital, Leishenshan Hospital, began construction on January 25 and finished 12 days later. Square footage information on both hospitals has been inconsistently reported, but Huoshenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,000 beds, while Leishenshan Hospital has a capacity for 1,600 beds. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Lee, Pillsbury
    Ms. Lee may be contacted at

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    March 02, 2020 —
    California can be an especially expensive place to live. While this is the common wisdom, residents of the state are also painfully aware that location is an equally important factor. Yet, to curb unscrupulous actions in certain areas and expansive rental increases, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB-1482, which is a state-wide limitation on yearly rental increases, prompting potential additions to leases, and additional notices that landlords are required to give to tenants. Failure to do so may cost landlords unnecessary costs and unforeseen complications around the termination of a tenancy. How Does the Rental Cap Work? The law sets forth three ways that rental increases may be limited: (1) a cap of 5% plus the percent change in the cost of living; (2) a cap of 10%; or (3) where local rent or price control that restricts annual increases in the rental rate to an amount less than the state law. The cap that applies is the one that is the most restrictive on the landlord. For example, if the cost of living has gone up by 6%, and there is a local law that restricts rental increases by 15%, then the state law would cap the landlord to a rental increase of 10%. Notably, this doesn't count any discounts or incentives that are applied to the rent, if they are (a) listed separately and (b) clearly stated within the residential lease agreement. Thus, even if the effective increase would be beyond the applicable cap, the landlord is not obligated to cap rent using the discounted rental fees. Finally, this does not prohibit the landlord from freely setting a rent for new tenants. The cap only applies to existing tenants. Exempt Properties from the Law Certain properties are also exempt from the rental cap law, allowing landlords to increase rents without limitation for the residential properties below:
    • Housing restricted by deed for purposes of affordable housing.
    • New housing with a certificate of occupancy that has been granted within the previous 15 years.
    • Condominiums or townhouses provided that the owner is not (a) a real estate investment trust; (b) a corporation, or (c) a limited liability trust.
    • A duplex in which one of the units is owner-occupied as the owner's primary residence.
    'Just Cause' for Terminations Is a Necessity Notably, AB-1482 is not limited to rent restrictions. AB-1482 also restricts the ability of a landlord to evict tenants after the tenant has been occupying the property for over 12 months without just cause. Just cause includes items typical to an ordinary eviction action, such as a failure to pay rent or a default of a material term of the lease, or nuisance actions. Importantly, the legislature provided "no-fault just cause" such as the intent to occupy the real property by the owner or one of their family members, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, compliance with a government agency or an intent to substantially remodel the property. In the event that the just cause is "no-fault," then the owner must either (a) assist the tenant in relocating by providing a direct payment of a full month's rent to the tenant within 15 calendar days of the notice; or (b) waive the payment of the last month's rent. Effectively, this puts a cost on the landlord to terminate a tenancy. Importantly, an owner's failure to do either of those actions will render the termination of tenancy void, and cannot be contractually waived. This does not apply to any of the housing types exempt under the rental cap provision, or (a) transient and tourist hotel occupancy; (b) housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or in an adult residential facility; (c) housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner; (d) single-family owner-occupied residences where the owner leases no more than two units or bedrooms; or (e) student housing for kindergartens or grades 1 to 12. Notwithstanding, landlords must also provide additional language within their lease giving notice of the rental cap law and the tenant's rights regarding termination. This language is stated within the law, and must be given in 12 point font. What Landlords Must Do Right Now Ultimately, landlords will have to show more care towards termination processes and rental increases moving forward. At a bare minimum, landlords will have to revise their form leases for new tenants and prepare addendums for any tenancies continuing in 2020. While the bare minimum is the new, state-mandated language to inform tenants of their rights, other language may be required if the landlord wishes to reserve a right to terminate in order to take occupancy for themselves. Furthermore, for any leases going forward, any landlord that wants to provide a temporary discount or incentive to rent their units will have to include language outlining and specifically stating the presence of the discount or incentive, or chance that a tenant may contest the increase in rent as a violation of the rental cap portion of the law. Similarly, the changes above will have to be implemented as an addendum to any leases being renewed. A failure to do any of these actions risks that a tenant may contest either the termination for being improper or an increase in rent, as an excessive rent hike. Kyle Janecek is an associate on the firm's Transactional team, and has experience with drafting leases for landlords and tenants, real estate purchase and sale agreements, and loans secured by real estate. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit 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

    May 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. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Dillion may be contacted at

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    March 09, 2020 —
    The California Legislature introduced more than 3,033 bills in the first half of the 2019-2020 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2020, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws. BIDDING & PREQUALIFICATIONS Disabled Veteran Preferences Strengthened (AB 230, Brough) The California Legislature intends that every state procurement authority meet or exceed a DVBE participation goal of a minimum of 3% of total contract value. State departments must require prime contractors to certify at the completion of each contract the amount each DVBE received from the prime contractor, among other information. This new law requires the prime contractor to provide upon request proof of the amount and percentage of work the prime contractor committed to provide to one or more DVBEs under the contract in addition to proof of payment for work done by the DVBE. Additionally, prime contractors must now obtain permission before they may replace a listed DVBE. County of San Joaquin Now Authorized to Establish Bid Preferences (AB 1533, Eggman) This new law extends to the County of San Joaquin existing law that authorizes local agencies to establish preferences for small businesses, disabled veteran businesses, and social enterprises in facilitating contract awards. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    February 18, 2020 —
    Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner. In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977. Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at