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

    Florida Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: In Title XXXIII Chapter 558, the Florida Legislature establishes a requirement that homeowners who allege construction defects must first notify the construction professional responsible for the defect and allow them an opportunity to repair the defect before the homeowner canbring suit against the construction professional. The statute, which allows homeowners and associations to file claims against certain types of contractors and others, defines the type of defects that fall under the authority of the legislation and the types of housing covered in thelegislation. Florida sets strict procedures that homeowners must follow in notifying construction professionals of alleged defects. The law also establishes strict timeframes for builders to respond to homeowner claims. Once a builder has inspected the unit, the law allows the builder to offer to repair or settle by paying the owner a sum to cover the cost of repairing the defect. The homeowner has the option of accepting the offer or rejecting the offer and filing suit. Under the statute the courts must abate any homeowner legal action until the homeowner has undertaken the claims process. The law also requires contractors, subcontractors and other covered under the law to notify homeowners of the right to cure process.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Esto Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tri-County Home Builders
    Local # 1073
    PO Box 420
    Marianna, FL 32447
    http://www.tricountyhba.com

    Tallahassee Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1064
    1835 Fiddler Court
    Tallahassee, FL 32308
    http://www.tallyba.com

    Building Industry Association of Okaloosa-Walton Cos
    Local # 1056
    1980 Lewis Turner Blvd
    Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
    http://www.biaow.org

    Home Builders Association of West Florida
    Local # 1048
    4400 Bayou Blvd Suite 45
    Pensacola, FL 32503
    http://www.westfloridabuilders.com

    Florida Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 1000
    PO Box 1259
    Tallahassee, FL 32302
    http://www.fhba.com

    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055
    http://www.buildcolumbiacounty.com

    Northeast Florida Builders Association
    Local # 1024
    103 Century 21 Dr Ste 100
    Jacksonville, FL 32216
    http://www.nefba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Esto Florida

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    DA’s Office Checking Workers Comp Compliance

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    More Broad-Based Expansion for Construction Industry Expected in 2015

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

    The National Building Museum’s A-Mazing Showpiece

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    What is a Personal Injury?

    Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Alan Packer Selected to the 2017 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Construction Project Bankruptcy Law
    Corporate Profile

    ESTO FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately five thousand building and claims related expert witness designations, the Esto, Florida Construction Expert Directory provides a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking meaningful resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the construction industry's most recognized companies, legal professionals, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. In connection with in house assets comprising testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, the organization brings national experience and local capabilities to Esto and the surrounding areas.

    Esto Florida expert witness concrete failureEsto Florida multi family design expert witnessEsto Florida architecture expert witnessEsto Florida construction forensic expert witnessEsto Florida architect expert witnessEsto Florida architectural engineering expert witnessEsto Florida construction experts
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Esto, Florida

    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    December 02, 2019 —
    The Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019). A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched. Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole. The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality. 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

    September 16, 2019 —
    On the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    September 09, 2019 —
    On June 21, 2019, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued draft guidance clarifying the treatment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental impact reviews of federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Those wishing to comment on the draft must submit comments within 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The draft guidance is part of the Trump Administration’s continuing efforts to streamline the permitting and environmental review process for infrastructure and energy projects. It replaces NEPA guidance on climate impacts issued in 2016 by the Obama administration, which was rescinded by President Trump’s Executive Order 13783 early in 2017. Although some initial reports suggest that the new draft guidance significantly pulls back from the Obama administration’s approach, on closer comparison it does not depart that much from the major recommendations of the rescinded guidance. In general, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing to undertake, approve or fund a major federal action to evaluate its environmental impacts, including both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects; to consider alternatives and mitigation; and to discuss cumulative impacts resulting from the incremental effects of the project when added to those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The new draft and the rescinded 2016 guidance contain similar recommendations regarding an agency’s obligations to consider indirect and cumulative GHG impacts, as well as on the use of cost-benefit analysis and the contentious Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) metric. Reprinted courtesy of Norman F. Carlin, Pillsbury and Eric Moorman, Pillsbury Mr. Carlin may be contacted at norman.carlin@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Moorman may be contacted at eric.moorman@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    August 06, 2019 —
    Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    November 04, 2019 —
    The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
    • The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
      • The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
      • A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
      • Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
      Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
      Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

      Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners

      January 06, 2020 —
      Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Walnut Creek attorney, Michael Krueger, and Newport Beach attorney, Jason Morris, have been elected to partnership. Their promotion is effective immediately. "We are proud to have Jason and Mike join the firm's partnership," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "They both embody the firm's core cultural pillars – like, trust, respect and loyalty – and they've both demonstrated a commitment to outstanding client service and excellent legal work. They will continue to propel the firm's success for decades to come." Michael Krueger is based in the firm's Walnut Creek office, representing companies at every stage of the business life cycle to create business solutions that minimize risk and accomplish strategic objectives. Recognized as a 2019 California Trailblazer by The Recorder, Krueger is a trusted advisor for complex business negotiations, real estate ventures including Opportunity Zone projects, mergers and acquisitions, bank finance and private equity transactions. A former in-house counsel and business owner, he serves as general counsel for clients focused on expanding their operations, products, and services. Krueger earned his B.A from Marian University and his J.D. from Valparaiso School of Law. Jason Morris is based in the firm's Newport Beach office, representing companies in all aspects of labor & employment law and business litigation. Whether offering practical advice on a wide range of day-to-day employment law issues, or navigating the complexity of all aspects of civil litigation defense, his focus is helping clients avoid potential legal landmines and keep their business assets protected. Morris brings significant leadership and trial experience to his practice, serving for nearly eight years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate both in the Pentagon advising senior military and civilian leaders, and as a trial attorney successfully representing more than 300 cases, including over 10 trials to verdict. Morris earned his B.A. from Marian University, cum laude, and his J.D. from Indiana University Maurer School of Law. 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, 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 www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

      July 30, 2019 —
      These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:
      The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.
      InDyne was subsequently awarded a contract with the Air Force and shortly thereafter sent a subcontract to Beacon and requested Beacon’s “best and final” pricing. Beacon protested by letter stating that it was only required to act consistently with its original bid pricing. Beacon then returned the subcontract with the original bid pricing and accepting all but a termination for convenience provision. Shortly thereafter, InDyne informed Beacon that InDyne had awarded the subcontract to one of Beacon’s competitors. Beacon of course sued and argued that the teaming agreement required that InDyne award the subcontract to Beacon. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
      Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

      Mind The Appeal Or: A Lesson From Auto-Owners Insurance Co. V. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. On Timing Insurance Bad Faith And Declaratory Judgment Insurance Claims Following A Nunn-Agreement

      August 06, 2019 —
      On May 30, 2019, Judge Richard Brooke Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado offered an insightful lesson to the parties in Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.[1] on the importance of ripeness in declaratory judgment insurance actions and bad faith counterclaims. The case arrived in front of Judge Jackson based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association and all the other claims between all the parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand on Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. (“Nunn-Agreement”) Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
      Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com