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

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand

    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

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    Five Years of Great Legal Blogging at Insurance Law Hawaii

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Discovery Requests in Bad Faith Litigation Considered by Court

    Hurricane Harvey: Understanding the Insurance Aspects, Immediate Actions for Risk Managers

    Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

    Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies

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

    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group

    Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    Around the State

    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows
    Corporate Profile

    INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through more than 4500 building and construction related expert designations, the Indian Harbour Beach, Florida Construction Expert Directory delivers a wide range of trial support and consulting services to legal professionals and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims and trial support services to the nation's most recognized builders, risk managers, legal professionals, owners, state and local government agencies. Utilizing in house resources which include testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, the organization brings national experience and local capabilities to Indian Harbour Beach and the surrounding areas.

    Indian Harbour Beach Florida construction expertsIndian Harbour Beach Florida civil engineering expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida construction claims expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida architectural engineering expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida construction expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida consulting architect expert witnessIndian Harbour Beach Florida expert witness concrete failure
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Indian Harbour Beach, Florida

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    August 26, 2019 —
    Although the lower court held that the insured contractor was entitled to coverage and indemnification under a CGL policy despite claims based upon faulty workmanship, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. David Group, Inc., 2019 Ala. LEXIS 52 (Ala. May 24, 2019). The David Group (TDG) specialized in custom-built homes. The Shahs purchased a newly built home from TDG in October 2006. After moving in, the Shahs experienced problems with their new home that TDG was unable to correct. In February 2008, the Shahs sued TDG. The complaint alleged that serious defects existed, resulting in health and safety issues, building code violations, poor workmanship, misuse of construction materials, and disregard of property installation methods. The case went to arbitration and an award of $12,725 was issued to the Shahs. Nationwide was TDG's CGL carrier and initially defended TDG. After Nationwide withdrew its defense, TDG sued seeking a judgment declaring that Nationwide was obligated to defend and indemnify. The trial court denied Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and issued a partial summary judgment in favor of TDG on the issue of coverage. Nationwide appealed. 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

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    October 07, 2019 —
    Last month a California Court of Appeals clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, to be entitled to a trial on the amount of goodwill lost. Yum Yum Donuts operated a shop in Los Angeles that was subject to eminent domain by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to make way for light railway track. At trial, Yum Yum sought loss of goodwill as part of its condemnation damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. At trial the MTA’s expert testified that Yum Yum could have reduced its goodwill loss if it relocated to one of three alternative locations rather than simply closing the shop. But the expert conceded that even if Yum Yum had relocated, it would have lost some goodwill. Yum Yum refused to relocate, arguing that its relocation costs would render the move unprofitable. The trial court found that Yum Yum’s failure to mitigate its damages barred Yum Yum from having a jury trial to recover any goodwill damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Josh Cohen, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jcohen@wendel.com

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    October 21, 2019 —
    My advice to home builders has long been to arbitrate construction defect claims instead of litigating them in front of juries. Based on my experience and watching others litigate claims, I have learned that home builders usually fare better in arbitration than in jury trials, both in terms of what they have to pay the homeowners or HOAs and also in what they recover from subcontractors and design professionals. Because of these dynamics, conventional wisdom has been that builders should arbitrate construction defect claims. For several reasons, I am now questioning whether the time is right to consider a third option. First, plaintiffs’ attorneys dislike arbitration and will continue their attempts to do away with arbitration for construction defect claims. In 2018, the Colorado Legislature considered HB 18-1261 and HB 18-1262. While both bills were ultimately killed, they showed the plaintiffs’ attorneys disdain for arbitration, and serve as a warning that attempts to prevent arbitration legislatively will continue. If the legislature does away with the ability to arbitrate construction defect claims, and that is the only means of dispute resolution contained in a builder’s contracts, that builder may find itself in front of a jury. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    November 18, 2019 —
    The final report of RASTI is now available in English. The project outlined a national vision and strategy for the adoption of open international standards in the real estate and construction industries. The Finnish version includes several appendices. One of the frameworks that RASTI devised was a built environment life-cycle process map. It is derived from the model of Antti Autio of the Ministry of the Environment. The map presents the processes of the four “lanes”: the customer’s/users value creation processes, public sector processes, information work, and production. Ideally, data and information flow across the processes, using open standards. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    September 09, 2019 —
    In its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention. The first possible amendment will modify the Board’s administrative election blocking charge practice by establishing a regulation-based vote and impound procedure to be used when a party, typically a union facing possible decertification, files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge and, based thereon, seeks to block the holding of an election. The second possible amendment will modify the Board’s current recognition bar case law by codifying prior Board case doctrine and creating a regulation-based requirement of notice of voluntary recognition to affected employees and a 45-day open period within which affected employees may call for an election before that voluntary recognition will be allowed to operate as a bar to employees raising later questions concerning the union’s representative status (QCR). Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Keahn Morris, John Bolesta and James Hays Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Hays may be contacted at jhays@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020

    December 22, 2019 —
    White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law and Media Law. Our Boston, New York and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience. National Tier 1 Insurance Law National Tier 3 Media Law Metropolitan Tier 1 Boston Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Delaware Product Liability Litigation – Defendants New Jersey Labor Law – Management Philadelphia Commercial Litigation Insurance Law Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs Metropolitan Tier 2 Boston Insurance Law Delaware Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants New Jersey Employment Law - Management Litigation - Labor & Employment Philadelphia Bet-the-Company Litigation Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants Media Law Real Estate Law Tax Law Trusts & Estates Law Metropolitan Tier 3 New York City Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Philadelphia Appellate Practice Construction Law First Amendment Law Litigation – Construction Litigation – Labor & Employment Patent Law Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    January 20, 2020 —
    In a recent holding by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the court held that Georgia’s eight-year statute of repose applied to bar the project owner’s warranty claims. The renovation work by the contractor on the owner’s chemical tank constituted an improvement of real property, and thus, the statute of repose bared any claims eight years after substantial completion thereof. In addition, the court rejected the project owner’s claim that it qualified as a third-party beneficiary of an extended warranty contained in a report given by a subcontractor to the contractor. Factual Background In 2000, Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company (“Southern States”) hired Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc (“Tampa Tank”) to renovate a tank to hold sulfuric acid. The parties’ written contract contained an express one-year warranty for material and workmanship from the date of completion. Two years later, in January 2002, the tank renovation was completed. Tampa Tank contracted with Corrosion Control Inc. (“CCI”) to design, assist with, and test the cathodic corrosion system. CCI provided only consultation and did not provide any onsite installation. Upon completion of installation, CCI supplied a report to Tampa Tank that the system was properly installed and fully functioning. Additionally, a post–installation report from CCI to Tampa Tank calculated an estimated life expectancy of forty-three to forty-five years. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    September 23, 2019 —
    On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. 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