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

    Tallahassee Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1064
    1835 Fiddler Court
    Tallahassee, FL 32308

    Building Industry Association of Okaloosa-Walton Cos
    Local # 1056
    1980 Lewis Turner Blvd
    Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547

    Home Builders Association of West Florida
    Local # 1048
    4400 Bayou Blvd Suite 45
    Pensacola, FL 32503

    Florida Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 1000
    PO Box 1259
    Tallahassee, FL 32302

    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055

    Northeast Florida Builders Association
    Local # 1024
    103 Century 21 Dr Ste 100
    Jacksonville, FL 32216

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Port St. Lucie Florida

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    2018 Spending Plan Boosts Funding for Affordable Housing

    Green Construction Trends Contractors Can Expect in 2019

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    Construction Costs Up

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Charges in Kansas Water Park Death

    Hail Drives Construction Spending in Amarillo

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    The Creation of San Fransokyo

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

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

    Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 4500 building and claims related expert witness designations, the Port St. Lucie, Florida Construction Expert Directory provides a single point of reference for construction defect and claims related support to lawyers and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction related litigation support and expert consulting services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Utilizing in house resources which comprise construction delay claims experts, registered design professionals, professional engineers, and credentailed construction consultants, the firm brings regional experience and flexible capabilities to the Port St. Lucie construction industry.

    Port St. Lucie Florida ada design expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida building code expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida hospital construction expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida concrete expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida roofing and waterproofing expert witnessPort St. Lucie Florida defective construction expertPort St. Lucie Florida civil engineer expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Port St. Lucie, Florida

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    October 07, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
    At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
    This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

    October 21, 2019 —
    Conflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith? A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics. On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP
    Mr. Millan may be contacted at

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    February 10, 2020 —
    In the 2019 edition of SDV’s Top Ten Insurance Cases, we probe wiretapping claims under an armed security services policy, delicately sniff out E&O coverage for a company using cow manure to create electricity, scour the earth for coverage for crumbling foundation claims, and inspect D&O policies for government investigation coverage. In addition, we preview some important and exciting decisions due in 2020. Without further ado, SDV raises the curtain on the most informative and influential insurance coverage decisions of 2019.1 1. ACE American Ins. Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc., 206 A.3d 437 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019) April 4, 2019 Is waiver of subrogation language in a standard AIA201 contract sufficient to bar an insurer’s subrogation rights? The New Jersey Supreme Court held that it was. Equinox Development obtained a comprehensive blanket all-risk policy with limits of $32 million per occurrence from ACE American Ins. Co. (“ACE”). The policy covered Equinox’s new project in Summit, New Jersey. Equinox hired Grace Construction as GC, who in turn subcontracted the plumbing scope of work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (“American”). After completion of the work under the subcontract, a water main failed and flooded the entire project. ACE paid the limits of the policy and subrogated against American to recover its losses. American argued that there was a waiver of subrogation in the AIA201 contract that barred the suit. ACE challenged the validity of the AIA provision, arguing that it applied only to claims before completion of construction and that it only applied to damage to the work itself and not to adjacent property. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the AIA provision effectively barred ACE’s subrogation claim. This decision provides guidance on a frequently used contract form for contractors across the country. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Jeffrey J. Vita, Grace V. Hebbel and Andrew G. Heckler Mr. Vita may be contacted at Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at Mr. Heckler may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review

    September 23, 2019 —
    Attorneys for families of the six people who were killed and for survivors of 2018’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse say Louis Berger Group is the last defendant that has not yet agreed to settle lawsuits in state court in Miami. The legal actions target companies that designed and built the bridge. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at Mr. Judy may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage

    February 03, 2020 —
    In T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 450 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2019) the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representation—made in a certificate of insurance—that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy. The question arose in a case where: (1) the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that the agent acted with apparent authority, but (2) the agent’s representation turned out to be inconsistent with the policy and (3) the certificate of insurance included additional text broadly disclaiming the certificate’s ability to “amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by” the policy. According to the Court, under Washington law the answer is yes: an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent in those circumstances. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, an insurance company’s representations would be meaningless and it could mislead without consequence. At the heart of this case were two T-Mobiles entities: T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”), which were distinct legal entities. T-Mobile NE engaged a contractor to construct a cell phone tower on a rooftop in New York City. The contract between T-Mobile NE and the contractor required the contractor to obtain a general liability insurance policy, to annually provide T-Mobile NE “with certificates of insurance evidencing [that policy’s] coverage,” and to name T-Mobile NE as an additional insured under the policy. T-Mobile USA was not a party to the contract, but was nonetheless aware of it and approved the contract as to form. The contractor obtained the required insurance policy from Selective. The policy provided that a third party would automatically become an “additional insured” under the policy if the contractor and the third party entered into their own contract that required the contractor to add the third party to its insurance policy as an additional insured. Because T-Mobile USA did not have a contract with the contractor, it did not automatically become an additional insured under the policy. Nevertheless, over the course of several years, Selective’s agent issued a series of certificates of insurance to “T-Mobile USA Inc., its Subsidiaries and Affiliates” that stated that those entities were “included as an additional insured [under the policy] with respect to” certain areas of coverage. The agent signed those certificates as Selective’s “Authorized Representative.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at

    Crane Firm Pulled Off NYC Projects Following Multiple Incidents

    October 07, 2019 —
    Following a partial crane collapse at a site on Manhattan’s Lower East Side and a fatality in April on a jobsite in lower Manhattan, the New York City Dept. of Buildings announced on Aug. 12 that it is suspending United Crane & Rigging’s work on 21 construction sites across the city. Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

      “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