• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Anaheim California condominium expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California retail construction expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California condominiums expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California structural steel construction expert witness Anaheim California production housing expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California casino resort 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

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    Another Smart Home Innovation: Remote HVAC Diagnostics

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    Collapse of Improperly Built Deck Not An Occurrence

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    "Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 4500 construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a superior construction and design expert support solution to lawyers and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. In connection with in house assets which include construction delay claims experts, registered design professionals, professional engineers, and credentailed construction consultants, the construction experts group brings specialized experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California building code compliance expert witnessAnaheim California testifying construction expert witnessAnaheim California consulting engineersAnaheim California expert witness roofingAnaheim California construction cost estimating expert witnessAnaheim California delay claim expert witnessAnaheim California architect expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim

    February 22, 2018 —
    A few years ago, the Fourth District Court of Florida rendered an opinion in Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County, Inc., 169 So.3d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) regarding Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (referred as to “FDUTPA”) (Florida Statute s. 501.201et seq.). This case held that a party can assert a FDUTPA claim even though the party is NOT a consumer. The party still has to prove there was an injury to consumers in filing such claim, but again, the party can bring the claim even though it is NOT a consumer. Caribbean Cruise Line, 169 So.3d at 169 (“[W]hile the claimant would have to prove that there was an injury or detriment to consumers in order to satisfy all of the elements of a FDUTPA claim, the claimant does not have to be a consumer to bring the claim.”).See also Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 2018 WL 905752, *15 (M.D.Fla 2018) (relying on Caribbean Cruise Line to find that even though the plaintiff does not need to be a consumer, the plaintiff still must prove an injury to consumers to satisfy elements of a FDUTPA claim). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at


    January 24, 2018 —
    RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ. JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ. DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ. The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held inLiberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred. The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely a remedy for construction defects but the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage. The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed. The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard Glucksman, Glenn Barger, Jon Turigliatto and David Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at Mr. Barger may be contacted at Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at Mr. Napper may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on February 16, 2017 Builders started work on more U.S. homes than forecast in January after an upward revision to starts in the prior month, a sign construction was on a steady path entering 2017. Residential starts totaled an annualized 1.25 million, easing from a 1.28 million pace in the prior month, a Commerce Department report showed Thursday. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.23 million. Permits, a proxy for future construction, increased at the fastest pace since November 2015 on a pickup in applications for apartment building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    February 15, 2018 —
    If you are reading this blog, my guess is that you know what excavation is and why it is important to the construction process. However, what you may not know is the complicated California law that governs this process. The statute for an excavation contractor to be familiar with is California Government Code section 4216, et seq. However, like most things worth pursuing, that is easier said than done. Section 4216 contains several layers of prerequisites and requirements. This article will explore the notice requirement. Section 4216.1 requires “every operator of a subsurface installation” to share costs of a regional notification center. This is necessary because Section 4216.2(b) requires “an excavator planning to conduct an excavation shall notify the appropriate regional notification center of the excavator’s intent to excavate” before beginning that excavation. The statute lists two regional notification centers: the Underground Service Alert—Northern California and the Under Ground Service Alert—Southern California. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Peng, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Peng may be contacted at

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    May 03, 2018 —
    For a quarter of a century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar has been a professional development staple of the construction defect industry. It’s the place where experts, attorneys, mediators, insurance agents, and other industry leaders have gathered to discuss current happenings, take continuing education credits, network with other industry members, and to connect with others. Celebrating its silver anniversary, this year’s seminar continues to be the construction defect community’s must-go-to event. On May 16th-18th, the seminar will return to the Disneyland Hotel. This issue of Construction Defect Journal will provide you with information about what’s happening in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar and to commemorate the past. We hope to see you at this year’s West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar. Enjoy! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

    February 15, 2018 —

    The Eleventh Circuit found that the insured caused property damage to areas beyond its own work, obligating the insurer to defend. Addison Ins. Co. v. 4000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass'n, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26870 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017).

    The condominium association contracted with Poma Construction Corp. to replace the building's aging concrete balcony railings with new aluminum and glass railings. Poma subcontracted with Windsor Metal Specialties, Inc. to paint the new railings. Work was completed on February 24, 2012. Poma issued a 10-year warranty covering its installation of the railings. Windsor issued a 20-year limited warranty covering the paint job.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    March 22, 2018 —

    The Florida District Court reversed erroneous jury instructions that adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine in determining whether the insurer was responsible for the insureds’ collapsed roof. Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 561 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

    The insureds filed a claim for their damaged roof, contending that the damage was caused by a hailstorm. Federal National Insurance Company denied the claim based upon exclusions for “wear and tear, marring, deterioration;” “faulty, inadequate or defective design;” “neglect;” “existing damage;” or “weather conditions.”

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    January 31, 2018 —
    An Iowa federal court recently ruled that an insurer must pay its policyholder’s defense costs from the date of installation of the allegedly faulty product, even though the underlying suits failed to allege when damage purportedly occurred. The ruling opens the door under each of the policyholder’s successive liability policies from 2000 to 2008, allowing the policyholder to recover millions of dollars in defense costs. The policyholder sought summary judgment concerning the date(s) on which the insurer’s defense obligation was triggered by fourteen of the fifteen claims asserted against it. The policyholder argued that the duty attached from the moment property damage potentially occurred, meaning the time when the underlying claimant installed or potentially could have installed the windows at issue in the underlying claims. The policyholder cited to the following evidence to support its claim: actual dates of installation (where available), dates of delivery, purchase or manufacture of the windows; and policy period referenced in the insurer’s claims notes as being potentially implicated by the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams and Brittany M. Davidson, Hunton & Williams Mr. Levine may be contacted at Ms. Davidson may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of