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

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

    Design-Assist, an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry[1]

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

    Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

    Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Form Contracts are Great, but. . .

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    Melissa Pang Elected Vice President of APABA-PA Board of Directors

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    City of Birmingham Countersues Contractor for Incomplete Work

    Do Change Orders Need to be in Writing and Other Things That Might Surprise You

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    The ARC and The Covenants
    Corporate Profile

    NOMA FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately 5000 building and claims related expert witness designations, the Noma, Florida Construction Expert Directory offers a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to builders, risk managers, and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the nation's most recognized builders, risk managers, legal professionals, owners, state and local government agencies. Utilizing captive assets which comprise construction cost and scheduling experts, registered design professionals, forensic engineers, certified professional estimators, the construction experts group brings national experience and local capabilities to Noma and the surrounding areas.

    Noma Florida construction cost estimating expert witnessNoma Florida building envelope expert witnessNoma Florida architectural expert witnessNoma Florida construction expert testimonyNoma Florida building code compliance expert witnessNoma Florida construction expert witnessesNoma Florida delay claim expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Noma, Florida

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    October 07, 2019 —
    The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Mountain Express Oil Company on its breach of contract claim against liability insurer, Southern Trust Insurance Company. Empire Petroleum brought claims against Mountain Express for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and libel or slander, among others. Mountain Express sought a defense to that lawsuit under its insurance policy with Southern Trust. Southern Trust contended that the insurance policy did not cover Empire’s non-libel/slander claims, and therefore reimbursed Mountain Express for only a portion of its attorneys’ fees. After the Empire lawsuit settled, Mountain Express sued Southern Trust for breach of contract and bad faith for failing to pay the remaining defense costs, contending that Southern Trust had a duty to defend the entire lawsuit. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mountain Express on its breach of contract claim. Citing policy language stating that “[the insurer] will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking those damages,” the court held that Southern Trust was obligated to defend the entire lawsuit. Specifically, in reaching that conclusion, the court noted that by agreeing to defend any “suit,” not any “claim,” Southern Trust obligated itself to defend the entire lawsuit if any claim could be covered under the policy. Accordingly, Southern Trust breached the policy when it only agreed to defend some of the claims against its insured. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    November 04, 2019 —
    In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker. East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion. As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    November 18, 2019 —
    The plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019). Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser. Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality. Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused. 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

    Dave McLain named Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants for 2019

    January 20, 2020 —
    The attorneys and staff at Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell are proud to announce that Law Week Colorado named Founding Member Dave McLain as the 2019 People’s Choice for Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. According to the publication:
    Law Week Colorado asked its readership to weigh in on the best attorneys in just about every practice area we could think of. We received hundreds of responses and sifted through the votes for each category to determine the “People’s Choice” winner – the top attorney in each practice area according to other attorneys. And then we handed it to the “Barrister” (the hive mind of Law Week staff, supplemented by public votes and a healthy dose of additional research) to determine the Barrister’s Choice.
    In recognizing Mr. McLain this year, Law Week Colorado stated:
    Previously appearing in Law Week’s 2015 Barrister’s Best issue [in which he was recognized as the Barrister’s Choice as Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants], David McLain participates in numerous speaking engagements on construction defects claims and is seen as a leader in the field. His extensive experience over the last two decades of practice speaks for itself.
    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

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    July 30, 2019 —
    If you are a contractor in DIRECT CONTRACT with an owner, serve a contractor final payment affidavit on the owner, as a matter of course, and without any undue delay, particularly if you are owed money and have recorded a construction lien. In numerous circumstances, I like to serve the contractor final payment affidavit with the construction lien. The contractor final payment affidavit is not a meaningless form. It is a statutory form (set forth in Florida Statute s. 713.06) required to be filled out by a lienor in direct privity of contract with an owner and served on the owner at least 5 days prior to the lienor foreclosing its construction lien. The contractor final payment affidavit serves as a condition precedent to foreclosing a construction lien. Failure to timely serve a contractor final payment affidavit should result in a dismissal of the lien foreclosure lawsuit, presumably by the owner moving for a motion for summary judgment. This should not occur. 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

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    November 24, 2019 —
    A new statute became effective July 28, 2019 that benefits contractors who have bid protests in Washington. A bid protest is the only way for disappointed bidders to challenge irregularities in the public bidding process on public works projects. Bid protests ensure the integrity of the public bidding system and are the contractor’s only remedy if its bid is improperly rejected or the winning bidder has errors in its bid that render it nonresponsive. Under the old law, a contractor was required to submit their bid protest within 2 days after the bid opening. The problem was that a contractor often does not know the basis to protest an award without seeing the other bids to determine whether the winning bid was responsive. Many owners provide copies of the bids if requested at the bid opening, but some contractors found that owners were refusing to provide copies of the other bids until after the 2-day protest period expired. The new law, which passed this last Legislative session[1], states that a contractor has two days after the bid opening to either submit a written protest or request copies of the competing bids. If the contractor requests copies of the competing bids from the owner, the contractor then has until 2 days after the competing bids are provided by the owner before the contractor is required to submit its bid protest. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

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

    January 13, 2020 —
    In Barrett v. Berry Contr. L.P., No. 13-18-00498-CV, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 8811, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered, among other things, the procedural timing requirements of filing a certificate of merit in conjunction with a complaint. The court concluded that the proper reading of the statute requires a plaintiff to file a certificate of merit with the first complaint naming the defendant as a party. In Barrett, after sustaining injuries while working at a refinery, David Barrett (Barrett) filed suit against Berry Contracting, LP and Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd. on July 6, 2016. In Barrett’s first amended complaint, which he filed on August 23, 2016, Barrett added Govind Development, LLC (Govind) as another defendant. Barrett subsequently filed a second amended complaint (omitting Govind) and, on December 27, 2017, shortly before the statute of limitations ran, a third amended complaint (reasserting claims against Govind). On January 28, 2018, after the statute of limitations period ran, Barrett filed a certificate of merit. Govind filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Barrett violated the statute that required a certificate of merit to be filed with the complaint, Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code §150.002.
    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002(a) states, In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, a claimant shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect or registered professional land surveyor…
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    January 13, 2020 —
    Despite being aware of cyber risk, and even frightened by it, a shocking number of companies in the construction industry have neither a cyber insurance policy nor a basic cyber security plan to deal with a hack or breach into their computer systems. Once breached, companies with no plan in place become, essentially, a rudderless ship subject to the whims of criminal tides. A proper cyber plan lays out at least the following:
    • the criteria for when a plan would be triggered (i.e., in the event of a breach or a hack);
    • which persons inside the company (in-house counsel, IT personnel, executive, project managers) and which persons outside the company (attorney with knowledge of cyber issues and ideally construction law as well; forensic computer experts, crisis management experts; and an insurance broker familiar with cyber policies) should be involved;
    • the chain of command and communication in this type of situation and the distinct roles each of the above players will fulfill (Note: this is not the same as the normal corporate chain of command); and
    • the various available options to address the breach situation, which will all depend upon the facts at issue—such as the type and extent of the breach and how much of what particular kind of information was lost, stolen or exfiltrated.
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Volack, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of