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

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

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

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

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

    Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Don’t Waive Too Much In Your Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    CDJ’s #2 Topic of the Year: Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014)

    Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects
    Corporate Profile


    Drawing from more than four thousand construction and design related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory provides a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to builders and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides construction claims evaluation and expert support services to the construction industry's leading builders and developers, legal professionals, and owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. In connection with in house assets which include design experts, civil / structural engineers, ICC Certified Inspectors, ASPE certified professional estimators, the firm brings regional experience and flexible capabilities to the Anaheim construction industry.

    Anaheim California consulting engineersAnaheim California construction safety expertAnaheim California defective construction expertAnaheim California OSHA expert witness constructionAnaheim California construction expert witnessAnaheim California soil failure expert witnessAnaheim California construction defect expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    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

    When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

    January 27, 2020 —
    What is a Notice of Completion? A “notice of completion” is a document recorded by the owner of property where construction work was performed. Specifically, it is recorded at the Office of the County Recorder in the County where the work was performed. The notice of completion tells the world at large that the construction project is complete. It also triggers the deadlines for those who have not been paid to make their claims for payment. Is an Owner of a California Private Works Project Required to Record a Notice of Completion? No, there is no requirement that an owner of a California private works construction project record a Notice of Completion. However, there are consequences which depend on whether an Owner elects to record the notice or not. For My Collection Rights, Why Does it Matter Whether a Notice of Completion Has Been Recorded? The date of recording of a valid notice of completion sets the deadline for those who have not been paid for work performed and materials supplied to a California construction project to pursue such important collection remedies as the “mechanics lien”, the “stop payment notice” and the “payment bond claim.” These are very powerful collection remedies for those who have not been paid. If the deadline to pursue these remedies is missed by a claimant, then the claimant’s right to pursue these remedies is also missed. One of these remedies, the mechanics lien, will enable the claimant to sell the owner’s property where the work was performed in order to get paid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    March 02, 2020 —
    This article was originally published for the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ATBL) Report, Volume XX, No. 3, Winter 2018 by attorney Leilani L. Jones. Opting for arbitration requires attorneys to balance efficiency and procedural protections. The implications of arbitration are something clients certainly have to carefully consider both when drafting arbitration provisions, and after initiating a demand. While arbitration can in many respects streamline the civil discovery process, one of the largest roadblocks for cases in California arbitrations is “streamlining” discovery from nonparties. This article explores the challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration, and proposes strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously. Alternative dispute resolution tends to make sense to most businesses implementing preventive measures for future litigation. Clients, lawyers, and judges can generally agree that arbitration is the more “cost-effective” way to resolve disputes, especially in California. While arbitration is theoretically a lowcost option for dispute resolution, almost all parties (particularly the party defending) bristle at climbing expenditures during discovery. This is all despite the perception of more “streamlined” processes in arbitrations. On balance, arbitrators, employing less formal procedures for discovery disputes, can typically cut to the chase faster than a civil judge. Parties often resolve issues via letter brief and telephonic hearing, if necessary, instead of formal noticed motions with accompanying separate statements. The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.’s (“JAMS”) own “Arbitration Discovery Protocols” specifically “ensure that an arbitration will be resolved much less expensively and in much less time than if it had been litigated in court.” Accessed at https:// Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Leilani E. Jones, Payne & Fears
    Ms. Jones may be contacted at

    The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

    March 23, 2020 —
    The Department of Labor (“DOL”) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued its 148-page Updated Construction Contractor Technical Assistance Guide (the “Guide”) on November 13, 2019. A complete copy of the Guide can be found here, but the below provides a summary of what every Federal Construction Contractor should know regarding the OFCCP’s November 2019 update to its prior 2006 publication. The DOL has identified the Guide as a “self-assessment tool” to assist contractors in meeting “their legal requirements and responsibilities for equal employment opportunity by preventing violations before they occur.” However, the Guide does not create or impose new requirements for Federal Construction Contractors. Instead, the Guide provides an overview of anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements and obligations under existing laws and regulations, and suggests best practices and guidance. Specifically, the Guide provides:
    • A concise summary of Federal Construction Contractors’ legal obligations under the three main laws enforced by the OFCCP: Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
    • A detailed explanation of requirements for written Affirmative Action Plans;
    • A clear schedule of Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications;
    • A reorganized recap of the sixteen affirmative action steps Federal Construction Contractors are required to implement in good-faith; and
    • A user-friendly roadmap of what to expect during an OFCCP audit, including a discussion of record keeping requirements.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at

    Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage

    February 03, 2020 —
    In T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 450 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2019) the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representation—made in a certificate of insurance—that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy. The question arose in a case where: (1) the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that the agent acted with apparent authority, but (2) the agent’s representation turned out to be inconsistent with the policy and (3) the certificate of insurance included additional text broadly disclaiming the certificate’s ability to “amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by” the policy. According to the Court, under Washington law the answer is yes: an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent in those circumstances. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, an insurance company’s representations would be meaningless and it could mislead without consequence. At the heart of this case were two T-Mobiles entities: T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”), which were distinct legal entities. T-Mobile NE engaged a contractor to construct a cell phone tower on a rooftop in New York City. The contract between T-Mobile NE and the contractor required the contractor to obtain a general liability insurance policy, to annually provide T-Mobile NE “with certificates of insurance evidencing [that policy’s] coverage,” and to name T-Mobile NE as an additional insured under the policy. T-Mobile USA was not a party to the contract, but was nonetheless aware of it and approved the contract as to form. The contractor obtained the required insurance policy from Selective. The policy provided that a third party would automatically become an “additional insured” under the policy if the contractor and the third party entered into their own contract that required the contractor to add the third party to its insurance policy as an additional insured. Because T-Mobile USA did not have a contract with the contractor, it did not automatically become an additional insured under the policy. Nevertheless, over the course of several years, Selective’s agent issued a series of certificates of insurance to “T-Mobile USA Inc., its Subsidiaries and Affiliates” that stated that those entities were “included as an additional insured [under the policy] with respect to” certain areas of coverage. The agent signed those certificates as Selective’s “Authorized Representative.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    December 09, 2019 —
    Any general contractor understands the range of factors that go into building and sustaining a successful jobsite: hiring the right team, maintaining cutting-edge equipment, ensuring constant communication with clients and effectively leveraging the newest building technologies, just to name a few. But any good general contractor understands that there is one factor that should always be considered as top priority: jobsite safety. The health and wellbeing of a project’s team is paramount for obvious reasons, and it isn’t a lighthearted matter. Injuries and fatalities have too often been a piece of our industry’s story. In 2017 alone, there were 971 reported deaths on construction sites, which accounted for 20% of total worker fatalities, according to a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Of these 971 fatalities, 582 were the result of construction’s “fatal four”—falls, workers being struck by objects, electrocutions and workers being caught between equipment. For members of the industry, these are difficult numbers to read and to process; yet, it is extremely important to consider the injuries and lives lost when we take into consideration the seriousness of jobsite safety. Often, general contractors’ and superintendents’ greatest challenge isn’t being convinced of the necessity of jobsite safety practices in protecting employees or the value of safety in creating a productive work environment. Instead, the focus should be providing industry leaders tips on exactly how to improve safety measures on their own jobsites. Understanding that safety is everyone’s responsibility is paramount. Reprinted courtesy of Ray Reese, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Reese may be contacted at

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    May 11, 2020 —
    In response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply. Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Perry may be contacted at

    New York Instructs Property Carriers to Advise Insureds on Business Interruption Coverage

    April 13, 2020 —
    The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) took the unusual step last week of instructing all property/casualty insurers to provide information on commercial property insurance and details on business interruption coverage in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The notice is here. The notice recognizes that policyholders have urgent questions about the business interruption coverage under their policies. Insurers must explain to policyholders the benefits under their policies and the protections provided in connection with COVID-19. The explanation to policyholders is to include the following relevant information.
    What type of commercial property insurance or otherwise related insurance policy does the insured hold?
    Does the insured's policy provide "business interruption" coverage? If so, provide the "covered perils" under such policy. Please also indicate whether the policy contains a requirement for "physical damage or loss" and explain whether contamination related to a pandemic may constitute "physical damage or loss." Please describe what type of damage or loss is sufficient for coverage under the policy.
    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