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

    Texas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 730 amended the Texas Property Code by adding Title 16 and amending chapter 27. Overseen by the Texas Residential Construction Commission (TRCC) the code asserts that a contractor is not liable for any percentage of damages caused by failure to take reasonable action to mitigate damages or take reasonable action to maintain the residence. It also limits damages, requires written notification and response for right of repair and defines warranty periods. Additionally, SB 754 states“(5-10 Sec. 27.107) a contractor may assert as an affirmative defense to an allegation of a defect made in a complaint filed under this subchapter that the defect is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the home.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Santa Rosa Texas

    No state license is required, however, general contractors must get permits at the local level. Separate boards license HVAC, and plumbing trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Rio Grande Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 4534
    419 Nolana Ste C
    McAllen, TX 78504


    Builders Association of Corpus Christi
    Local # 4521
    5325 Yorktown Blvd
    Corpus Christi, TX 78413
    http://www.bacctexas.org/

    Laredo Builders Association
    Local # 4593
    201 W Hillside Suite 3
    Laredo, TX 78041
    http://www.laredobuilders.org

    Builders Association of Victoria
    Local # 4572
    5105 E Airline Rd
    Victoria, TX 77904
    http://www.vctbuilders.org

    Galveston Area Builders & Remodelers Association
    Local # 4533
    P O Box 1037
    Santa Fe, TX 77517
    http://www.galvestonbuilders.org/

    Builders Association of Greater San Antonio
    Local # 4560
    3625 Paesanos Parkwary
    San Antonio, TX 78231
    http://www.sabuilders.com

    Greater New Braunfels Home Builders Association
    Local # 4503
    625 W San Antonio St
    New Braunfels, TX 78130
    http://www.newbraunfelshomebuilders.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Santa Rosa Texas

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    EEOC Sues Whiting-Turner Over Black Worker Treatment at Tennessee Google Project

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Texas Supreme Court to Review Eight-Corners Duty-to-Defend Rule

    Unjust Enrichment Damages Must Be Measurable and Quantifiable

    Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

    Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds Economic Loss Doctrine Applies to Damage to Other Property If It Was a Foreseeable Result of Disappointed Contractual Expectations

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse

    Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/15/26) – The World Cup’s Effect on Commercial Real Estate, Megadeals Lift CRE Sales and Algorithmic Pricing Lawsuits Continue

    Alaska Supreme Court Finds Insurer Owes No Independent Duty to Injured Party

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Signs of a Slowdown in Luxury Condos

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

    Inaccurate Representations Can Lead to Differing Site Conditions Claim

    No Cherry Picking: Direct Benefits Estoppel and Binding Non-Parties to Arbitration

    Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

    When Your Scheduler Hallucinates: Managing AI Risk on the Job Site

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

    US Moves to Come Clean on PFAS in Drinking Water

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane . . . No, It’s a Drone. Long Awaited FAA Drone Regulations Finally Take Flight

    Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

    For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key

    Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

    State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

    Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

    Kadeejah Kelly Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Carolinas Storm Damage Tally Impeded by Lingering Floods
    Corporate Profile

    SANTA ROSA TEXAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately five thousand engineering, construction, and builders standard of care related expert designations, the Santa Rosa, Texas Construction Expert Directory provides a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to construction claims professionals seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction related litigation support and expert witness services to the building industry's most recognized companies, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, risk managers, and a variety of municipalities. Utilizing in house resources which include building envelope and design experts, forensic engineers, forensic architects, and construction cost and scheduling consultants, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Santa Rosa region.

    Santa Rosa Texas roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSanta Rosa Texas construction forensic expert witnessSanta Rosa Texas multi family design expert witnessSanta Rosa Texas building expertSanta Rosa Texas construction expert witness public projectsSanta Rosa Texas structural concrete expertSanta Rosa Texas engineering expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Santa Rosa, Texas

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jacqueline McCalla as Its Newest Partner

    February 02, 2026 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – January 28, 2026 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Walnut Creek attorney Jacqueline McCalla has been elected to partnership. Jacqueline focuses her practice on business and construction litigation. In her practice, Jacqueline takes pride in assisting businesses of all sizes and entrepreneurs in various matters whether it be a pre-litigation matter or in litigation, from case inception through trial. She represents developers, builders, and contractors in complex, multi-party disputes involving a variety of residential, commercial, and mixed-use properties. Jacqueline's practice also includes litigating insurance disputes. Jacqueline leverages her past experience advocating for both carriers and insureds to now help companies better understand their policies and stay protected. "Since joining the firm, Jacqueline has been a thoughtful, hardworking, and solutions-oriented attorney who consistently delivers great results for our clients," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "It's no surprise that clients value her work and actively seek her out." Jacqueline earned a B.A. in Legal Studies from University of California, Berkeley, and a J.D., from University of San Francisco School of Law, graduating magna cum laude. About Newmeyer Dillion For over 40 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. 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 www.newmeyerdillion.com.

    What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

    July 13, 2026 —
    Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

    Elliott Backed Venture Sues Lloyds Over Avant Cladding, Times Reports

    February 17, 2026 —
    Elliott Investment Management and British housing tycoon Jeff Fairburn, joint-venture partners in UK homebuilder Avant Homes Group, are suing Lloyds Banking Group Plc over who should pay to fix properties that fail to meet post-Grenfell fire-safety standards, the Times reported. Avant, which faces remediation costs of at least £107 million ($146 million) for potentially dangerous cladding, argues that Lloyds should shoulder part of the bill because most of the developments were built before 2014, when the homebuilder was under the bank’s ownership, the Times reported. Cladding has become a contentious issue in the UK following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, in which dozens died after flames spread rapidly through flammable exterior cladding on the West London high-rise, laying bare deep failures in Britain’s building safety regulations. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eamon Farhat, Bloomberg

    Snell & Wilmer Recognized Among the Top 10 Largest Law Firms in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal for the Ninth Consecutive Year

    April 27, 2026 —
    ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been named the eighth largest law firm in Orange County on the Orange County Business Journal’s 2026 List of Law Firms. The office has been ranked among the top 10 largest law firms in the region by the Orange County Business Journal for nine consecutive years. “We are proud to once again be recognized among the top law firms in Orange County,” said Jonathan E. Frank, managing partner of the firm’s Orange County office. “This recognition is a testament to the outstanding attorneys and professionals in our Orange County office and the clients who trust us with their most important matters. Being ranked among the top 10 largest firms in the region for nine consecutive years reflects both the strength of our team and our deep commitment to serving the Orange County business community.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

    Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later

    April 14, 2026 —
    Turnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation. The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims. Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt. These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association. The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences: Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects. Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable. Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign. Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement. These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance. Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims. Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.

    Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: The Refund Process Will Be Messy

    March 10, 2026 —
    On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs unilaterally.1 The decision invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs and the drug-trafficking tariffs imposed under IEEPA. For importers, the immediate question is whether, how, and when refunds can actually be obtained. On that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court provided no roadmap. To the contrary, the dissent warned that the United States “may be required to refund billions of dollars,” that the process is likely to be a “mess,” and that the majority opinion “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” Reprinted courtesy of Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer, Derek Flint, Snell & Wilmer, T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer and Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com Mr. Flint may be contacted at dflint@swlaw.com Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com> Read the full story...

    Engineering Seals Versus Contracts ‘Under Seal’ (Two Very Different Things)

    May 05, 2026 —
    Recently, I was asked by a reader to explain the difference between a document that is ‘sealed’ by an engineer (or architect) and one that is signed ‘under seal’. This question prompted this post, as others may also be wondering about the distinction. [Hi Ed! Thanks for your question] Professionals have ‘seals’ that show that they are registered (Engineers) or licensed (Architects). As most of you likely know, your professional seal is something that is hard won and which is used when—and only when—your plans were made by you or someone under your direct supervisory control. Your signature represents that you were in responsible control over the documents, and that they have met the required professional standard of care. (21 NC Admin Code 2-0206 (a)(11)). Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Court Conditionally Grants Mandamus Relief to Compel Appraisal

    February 02, 2026 —
    The court conditionally granted the insurer’s writ of mandamus to compel an appraisal after the trial court denied the insurer’s motion to compel appraisal. In re Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 8932 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2025). The insureds, Jay Steinfeld and Barbara Winthrop (Steinfeld) ,hired Southhampton Group to build their home. Construction began in 2021. Southhampton Group obtained a builder’s risk policy from Zurich which named Steinfeld as an additional insured. Shortly before completion of the home, Sheet Metal Crafts, a subcontractor working on the home’s roof, caused a fire that substantially damaged the home. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com