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

    Home Sales Still Low, But Enough to Spur Homebuilders

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Courts Are Conflicted As To Whether "Good Faith" Settlement Determinations Can Be Reviewed Via Writ Petition Or Appeal

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Fire Reveals Defects, Appeals Court Affirms Judgment against Builder

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    Demand for Urban Living Leads to Austin Building Boom

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says Georgia Supreme Court

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Are Construction Defects Covered by Your General Liability Policy?

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Construction Defect Not Occurrences, Says Hawaii Court

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    District Court’s Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Minnesota Starts Wide-Ranging Registration of Contractors

    Statute of Repose Dependant on When Subcontractors Finished

    California Bill Would Notify Homeowners on Construction Defect Options

    Hilton Grand Vacations Defect Trial Delayed

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Claims Under Colorado Defect Action Reform Act Count as Suits

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Florida Law: Defects in Infrastructure Improvements Not Covered in Home Construction Warranties
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from approximately 5000 construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups concerned with the effective resolution of construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides construction related litigation support and expert consulting services to the industry's leading construction attorneys, Fortune 500 builders, insurers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Employing in house resources which comprise construction cost, scheduling, and delay experts, professional engineers, ASPE certified professional estimators, and construction safety professionals, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California construction code expert witnessAnaheim California roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAnaheim California ada design expert witnessAnaheim California construction expert testimonyAnaheim California building consultant expertAnaheim California consulting engineersAnaheim California consulting general contractor
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    February 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, contending it had no obligation to defend two related underlying construction defect cases. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. R.L.Lantana Boatyard, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2466 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2012).

    An engineering report noted design construction defects and deficiencies in visible, physical improvements at The Moorings at Lantana Condominium. In two lawsuits, The Moorings sued the developer, R.L. Lantana Boatyard ("RLLB"), and the contractor, Current Builders of Florida.

    Current Builders was insured by Amerisure. RLLB was named as an additional insured under the Amerisure policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at

    Coverage Exists Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    July 10, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Finding coverage under the ensuing loss provision, the Washington Supreme Court overruled a Court of Appeals decision we previously reported here. Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 276 P.3d 300 (Wash. 2012).

    Vision developed a condominium project. Before concrete was poured, a subcontractor supplied the shoring to temporarily support the poured concrete slabs. After the shoring installation was completed, concrete was poured on the first floor. When the pouring was finished, the shoring gave way. The framing, rebar and newly poured concrete came crashing down onto the the lower level parking area, where the wet concrete eventually hardened. It took several weeks to clean up the debris and repair the damage.

    Vision had a builders’ risk policy with Philadelphia. The policy excluded losses caused by or resulting from deficient design or faulty workmanship. Collapse, however, was not listed as an excluded event. Further, the exclusion for faulty workmanship contained a resulting loss clause providing that "if loss or damage by a Covered Cause of Loss results, [Philadelphia] will pay for the loss or damage caused by that Covered Cause of Loss."

    Philadelphia denied coverage under the faulty workmanship exclusion.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    December 9, 2011 — Heather M. Anderson, Colorado Construction Litigation

    The United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently ruled that primary insurers are necessary parties, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, in a declaratory judgment action being pursued by an excess carrier. See Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania v. LNC Communities II, LLC, 2011 WL 5548955 (D. Colo. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 is almost identical to Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and pertains to the joinder of persons needed for “just adjudication.” The Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (“ICSOP”) sought a declaratory judgment that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the defendants (collectively referred to as “Lennar Companies”) with regard to the underlying lawsuit brought by The Falls at Legend Trail Owners Association, Inc. (the “HOA”). Id. at *2. In its lawsuit, the HOA alleged Lennar Companies were liable for construction defects at The Falls at Legend Trail residential development.

    Lennar Companies held two primary insurance policies, one issued by OneBeacon Insurance Company f/k/a General Accident Insurance Company (“General Accident”) and the other issued by American Safety Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“American Safety”). Lennar Companies also carried excess policies issued by ICSOP and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (“Ohio Casualty”).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    December 20, 2012 — CDJ Staff

    The South Carolina Supreme Court has left the legislature’s new, expanded definition of “occurrence” in place, declining to declare it unconstitutional. South Carolina included faulty workmanship as an occurrence in response to a Supreme Court decision, which the court later reversed. One of the parties in that earlier decision, Harleysville Insurance, challenged the new law, claiming that the legislature didn’t have the power to pass a law to overturn a court ruling. The court did not concur.

    However, the court did determine that the law was not retroactive and covered only claims filed after the law became effective in May 2011. The Chief Justice of South Carolina noted that “insurance coverage for construction liability lacks clarity, particularly with respect to whether construction defects constitute ‘occurrences’ under construction general insurance policies.”

    Read the full story…

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    December 9, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    The Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”

    After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.

    The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.

    In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.

    Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.

    In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.

    Read the court’s decision…

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    August 17, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    A state audit of the Los Angeles Community College District found many problems with their construction spending. Their report, as described in the Los Angeles Times, found construction money spent for other purposes, such as promotional photography and public relation tours, $28.3 million spent on projects that were later cancelled, and oversight committees that provided no oversight.

    Earlier this year, the LA Times ran a series of articles detailing problems with the Los Angles Community College District’s construction program. The LA Times reported that the State Controller’s audit reached many of the same conclusions.

    The Community College District disputed the findings.

    Read the full story…

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    June 16, 2011 — CDJ Staff

    Louisiana politicians are still working on a compromise in the state’s construction budget, as reported in the Times-Picayune. Rob Marrianneax, the chair of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, removed a $45 million request from Governor Bobby Jindal and added $4 million for projects that Jindal vetoed last year.

    Two senators have formed competing plans to fund redevelopment construction for New Orleans’s Methodist Hospital. Mitch Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans, hoped for $30 million dollars in state bonds. Senator Cynthia Willard-Lewis proposed an amendment that would supply $1.6 million, while Senator J.P. Morrell has an amendment that would supply $4 million.

    Read the full story…

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    November 18, 2011 — Tred Eyerley, Insurance Law Hawaii

    The contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

    The policies held by Bellevue Master, the general contractor, required it to be an additional insured under any subcontractor’s liability policy. Northwest Tower Crane Services was a subcontractor. Bellevue Master LLC, faxed a message that Northwest could continue to be a subcontractor on the project if it complied with Bellevue Master’s insurance requirements. Northwest contacted its insurance broker and requested an insurance certificate be issued to Bellevue Master so that it would be an additional insured under Northwest’s policy.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at