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

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    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

    Tri-County Home Builders
    Local # 1073
    PO Box 420
    Marianna, FL 32447
    http://www.tricountyhba.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 Greensboro Florida

    Gordon & Rees Ranks #5 in Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    Partners Nicole Whyte and Karen Baytosh are Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers 2021 and Nicole Nuzzo is Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named for Top-Tier Practice Areas in 2018 U.S. News – Best Law Firms List

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

    Workarounds for Workers' Comp Immunity: How to Obtain Additional Insured Coverage when the Named Insured is Immune from Suit

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Happenings in and around the 2015 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    Canada Housing Starts Increase on Multiple-Unit Projects

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    Environmental Law Violations: When you Should Hire a Lawyer

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim
    Corporate Profile

    GREENSBORO FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through more than four thousand construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Greensboro, Florida Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to construction claims professionals seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation, testimony, and support services to the industry's leading construction attorneys, Fortune 500 builders, insurers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Utilizing in house assets which include licensed general and specialty contractors, consulting civil engineers, NCARB certified architects, roofing, and building envelope experts, the construction experts group brings specialized experience and local capabilities to Greensboro and the surrounding areas.

    Greensboro Florida construction expertsGreensboro Florida construction code expert witnessGreensboro Florida construction expert witness public projectsGreensboro Florida construction claims expert witnessGreensboro Florida expert witness roofingGreensboro Florida consulting engineersGreensboro Florida roofing construction expert
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Greensboro, Florida

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    February 15, 2021 —
    In Cabatit v Sunnova Energy Corporation, the Third Appellate District held that an arbitration clause in a solar power lease agreement was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In Cabatit, Mr. and Ms. Cabitat entered into a solar power lease agreement (the “Agreement”) with Sunnova Energy Corporation (“Sunnova”). Ms. Cabitat, who signed the agreement, speaks English but does not understand complicated or technical terms. The salesperson scrolled through the agreement language and Ms. Cabatit initialed where the salesperson indicated, even though she did not understand most of what he was saying. The salesperson did not explain anything about the arbitration clause nor did he provide Ms. Cabatit with a copy of the Agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    August 31, 2020 —
    Los Angeles Partner Alexis G. Crump has been recognized with a 2020 Lawyer Monthly "Women in Law Award." In receiving this honor, Ms. Crump joins an elite group of women from around the world who have influenced the legal profession with their experience and expertise. Lawyer Monthly’s "Women in Law Awards" emerged as one of the first industry awards to celebrate the achievements and contributions made by women working globally in the legal sector and in business. Recognizing women at all levels of seniority, the publication seeks to acknowledge the challenges that female legal professionals regularly overcome to serve their clients and perform at their best. “It is an honor to be recognized alongside so many outstanding and accomplished women. I look forward to continuing to support my colleagues in their work and participating in the global network of female attorneys,” Ms. Crump said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Crump, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Crump may be contacted at Alexis.Crump@lewisbrisbois.com

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    January 18, 2021 —
    When a party breaches an agreement, particularly when dealing with real estate, there is an equitable remedy known as specific performance that requests the trial judge issue an order to affirmatively force the breaching party to perform, i.e., close on the real estate contract. You are asking the court to require the other party to specifically perform an affirmative obligation. See Melbourne Ocean Club Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Elledge, 71 So.3d 144, 146 (Fla. 2011).
    A decree of specific performance is an equitable remedy ‘not granted as a matter of right or grace but as a matter of sound judicial discretion’ governed by legal and equitable principles. Specific performance shall only be granted when 1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to it, 2) there is no adequate remedy at law, and 3) the judge believes that justice requires it. Castigliano v. O’Connor, 911 So.2d 145, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted).
    An example of specific performance may play out, as mentioned, in a real estate contract where a seller refuses to close on the transaction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    October 05, 2020 —
    The last few weeks have yielded a number of interesting developments in the Federal courts. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL In re Flint Water Cases Several local and State of Michigan officials, including the former governor, requested dismissal from the civil litigation seeking damages for the massive failure of Flint, Michigan’s public drinking water system. On August 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs, residents of Flint, have successfully pled a case that the conduct of the defendants so “shocked the conscience” that a claim for a violation of their substantive due process rights was appropriately alleged. The defendants, including the former governor, argued that they were entitled to a qualified immunity defense. The court rejected this argument on the basis of the earlier decisions made by the court in this matter. Judge Sutton concurred because he was bound by this precedent, but remarked that the evidence for the governor’s culpability was very thin; he was not intimately connected to the extraordinary error in judgment. The majority was very upset with this concurrence as indicted by their own opinion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Commentary: How to Limit COVID-19 Related Legal Claims

    January 11, 2021 —
    We are 10 months into the global pandemic. Given the magnitude of additional costs and upended expectations and risk-allocation, we foresee a wave of disputes coming soon. Whether it is large or small depends heavily on how well project team members handle the COVID-19 project impacts now. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lindsay, Crowell & Moring (ENR) and Meagan Bachman, Crowell & Moring (ENR) Ms. Bachman may be contacted at mbachman@crowell.com Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at joshlindsay@crowell.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeal Puts the “Equity” in Equitable Subrogation

    October 05, 2020 —
    Subrogation as a concept is well understood in insurance circles. According to the Institute of Risk Management Institute’s glossary of insurance terms subrogation is “the assignment to an insurer by the terms of [a] policy or by law, after payment of a loss, of the rights fo the insured to recover the amount of the loss from one legally liable for it.” In other words, if an insurer comes out of pocket for something someone else broke, the insurer can turn to that responsible party for reimbursement of its out of pocket costs. Typically, subrogation is, as stated in IRMI’s glossary of insurance terms, a matter of contract and the rights and responsibilities of parties are set forth within the terms of a policy. However, subrogation may, as stated in IRMI’s glossary, also be matter of law. And this is where equitable subrogation comes in. “Equitable subrogation,” according to IRMI, is “the right of subrogation granted under common law when one party has made a payment on behalf of another and becomes entitled to whatever recovery rights the other party has against a responsible third party.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    October 12, 2020 —
    As is often the case in construction defect and other insurance defense litigation, a plaintiff’s claims for relief typically encompass both covered and uncovered damages. Obviously, it is in the insured’s best interests to have as many damages covered by insurance as possible. From the insurer’s perspective and against the backdrop of owing duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds, however, it is generally better to have an allocation of covered vs. non-covered damages. This places the insurer, insured, and insurance retained defense counsel in a difficult position. A recent opinion from U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Rockhill Ins. Co. v. CFI-Global Fisheries Mgmt, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-02760-RM-MJW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35209 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2020), sheds light on the issue, even though some may feel it only further muddies already murky waters. Rockhill involved review of an arbitration proceeding that property-owner, Heirloom I, LLC (“Heirloom”) filed against CFI-Global Fisheries Management (“CFI”). Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill Insurance”) was asked to defend the arbitration as CFI’s professional and general liability insurer. At issue in the arbitration was Heirloom’s claim that CFI defectively designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement that was destroyed by natural processes four times in three years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Likman may be contacted at likman@hhmrlaw.com

    Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

    November 02, 2020 —
    The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer. In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
    The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
    2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com