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

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    ASCE Releases New Report on Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure Investment in Disadvantaged Communities

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage

    Fourteen Years as a Solo!

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    The Peak of Hurricane Season Is Here: How to Manage Risks Before They Manage You

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    The Age of Uncertainty: Monitoring Construction Policy Shifts

    Rachel Reynolds Selected as Prime Member of ADTA

    Recent Regulatory Activity

    Climate-Proofing Your Home: Upgrades to Weather a Drought

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

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

    Who, Me?

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Did You Know: Unique Legal Considerations for Animal Care Facilities

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    Cincinnati Team Secures Summary Judgment for Paving Company in Trip-and-Fall Case

    Christopher Leise Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers 2022 "Lawyer of the Year"

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/21/24) – REITs Show Their Strength, Energy Prices Increase Construction Costs and CRE Struggles to Keep Pace

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Hunton Insurance Practice, Attorneys Recognized in 2024 Edition of The Legal 500 United States

    Be Careful with Good Faith Payments

    Insurance and Reconstruction: A Guide for Property Owners Facing Wildfire Aftermath and Other Disasters

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

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    The Importance of Retrofitting Existing Construction to Meet Sustainability Standards

    Insurer Cannot Dispose of Water Leak or Bad Faith Claims on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Newmeyer Dillion Announces Jacqueline McCalla as Its Newest Partner

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 4500 construction and design related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory provides a wide spectrum of trial support and consulting services to attorneys and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides building related trial 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 include design experts, civil / structural engineers, ICC Certified Inspectors, ASPE certified professional estimators, the firm brings regional experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California architect expert witnessAnaheim California construction safety expertAnaheim California construction expert witnessesAnaheim California expert witnesses fenestrationAnaheim California defective construction expertAnaheim California construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAnaheim California construction claims expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Construction Liens: Liening for Amounts Not Yet Technically Due Does Not Mean Lien Is Fraudulent

    August 11, 2026 —
    A 2024 bankruptcy ruling, In re Edgewater Construction Group, Inc., 657 B.R. 668 (S.D.Fla. 2024), touched upon an interesting issue when it comes to construction liens. Is a construction lien fraudulent simply because the lien includes amounts not yet due? Not necessarily. In this bankruptcy dispute, the subcontractor debtor (that filed for bankruptcy) recorded two construction liens on projects. The general contractor argued in the bankruptcy court that the subcontractor debtor’s liens were fraudulent. As to the first lien, the general contractor argued that the lien was fraudulent because it included amounts that the debtor knew the general contractor had already paid to the debtor’s subcontractors/suppliers. The bankruptcy court disagreed: “The Court finds that, although the Debtor had been told that [the general contractor] had paid these subcontractors, in light of the ongoing dispute between Debtor and [the general contractor], it was reasonable for the Debtor to demand proof. Debtor’s subsequent filing of a partial satisfaction of lien once the Debtor received the requested proof of payment from [the general contractor] counters any claim of willful exaggeration.” In re Edgewater Construction Group, supra, at 672-673. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    $356 Million Judgement Against Developer for Defective Construction of DC Condominium

    August 16, 2026 —
    On July 31, 2026, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered a $356,085,513.00 judgment against developers JBG Smith for defective construction and renovation of the Wardman Tower Residential Condominium in Washington, D.C. The case is Wardman Tower Residential Condominium Unit Owners Association v. JBG Smith Properties, et al., No. 2020 CA 004807 B (D.C. Super. Ct.). In a 148-page Trial Order, the D.C. Superior Court awarded $118,695,171.00 in damages in favor of the condominium association and against the condominium developers, including JBG Smith. The Court trebled those damages pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to reach an ultimate judgment of $356,085,513.00. See Cowie Law Group: DC Condominium Construction Defects: Recovering Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Expenses & Treble Damages Under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Cowie Law Group, P.C. filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Association in 2020. The firm represented the Association throughout years of pretrial discovery and ultimately served as trial counsel with Williams & Connolly LLP during a lengthy bench trial before the Honorable Yvonne Williams. The Cowie Law Group team included attorneys, George A. Bealefeld, III, Albert G. McCarraher, Stanford L. Kimmel, III and Nicholas D. Cowie. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law Group
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowielawgroup.com

    Achieving Sustainability Through Design-Build Delivery: Part I – An Overview

    September 21, 2026 —
    This article was written for the AGC’s Law in Brief and first appeared here. Sustainability is no longer optional. What was once a matter of public policy or corporate preference has become a regulatory mandate and is reshaping how construction projects are designed, built, and operated. This mandate is not solely figurative. Rather, states have started to follow Europe’s lead by beginning to codify sustainability requirements into regulations and law. California led the charge by adding mandatory embodied-carbon emissions regulations into CALGreen, and other states, such as New York, have introduced bills to implement similar requirements. Owners, designers, and builders must now treat sustainability not as aspirational, but as a clearly defined contract issue from the outset, particularly where the project is expected to achieve a third-party rating, meet energy or resiliency targets, qualify for incentives, or comply with evolving green building codes. In the federal public sector, construction contracts include a layered compliance framework—executive order-inspired policy, FAR-mandated clauses, and enduring statutory requirements—requiring contractors to integrate sustainability into design, material selection, and lifecycle management. Staying ahead means aligning with regulatory standards, conducting life-cycle cost analyses, and embedding sustainability into every procurement and construction decision. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua M. Pruett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Jennifer L. Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Tiffany A. Harrod, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Pruett may be contacted at jpruett@pecklaw.com Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

    Insurer Dispenses with Bad Faith Claim on Summary Judgment

    June 22, 2026 —
    The court granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment because the insured failed to present evidence that the insurer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. PSY Burger, LLC v. State Farm General Insurance Company, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66991(C.D. Cal. March 20, 2026). The insured’s commercial property suffered heavy damage from tropical storm Hilary. State Farm denied coverage to repair the damage. The insured sued State Farm alleging breach of contract and bad faith due to an inadequate investigation. Apparently, the insured did not retain an expert to opine on claims handling. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Vacant Building Negates Coverage for Broken Pipe

    September 01, 2026 —
    The Michigan Court of Appeals found the insured was not covered for water damage because the commercial space was left vacant. Cherry Hill Recreation Center, Inc. v. Conifer Ins Co., 2026 Mich, App. LEXIS 5099 (Mich Ct. App. June 18, 2026). Alan Abbas purchased a bowling alley. Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and executive orders issued by the governor, Abbas was unable to operate the bowling center for several months. During the winter, Abbas allowed the thermostat to drop significantly, with the building expected to be around 43 degrees Fahrenheit. He later admitted the sprinkler system’s pipes were not protected against freezing. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    DOI Finalizes Long-Awaited Modernization of Type A Natural Resource Damage Assessment Regulations

    August 03, 2026 —
    For nearly three decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) simplified “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations were available more in theory than in practice, constrained by dated models, narrow geographic applicability and a $100,000 cap that rarely matched the economics of modern environmental claims. DOI has now finalized revisions to the Type A natural resource damages assessment procedures under 43 C.F.R. Part 11 for hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), with the final rule published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2026 and scheduled to become effective August 12, 2026. As discussed previously, DOI has sought to modernize what it views as an “inefficient and inflexible” process and restore the Type A procedure to its intended role as a more streamlined pathway for smaller, less contentious NRD claims. The final rule adopts a $5 million default damages threshold, allows use above that amount if all parties agree, clarifies that Type A may be used in all environments and for all natural resource types, and removes legacy model appendices that had tethered the process to outdated formulas. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    Shane Singh Named One of Los Angeles Business Journal's 'Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles' for 2026

    April 27, 2026 —
    Sacramento Partner Shane Singh has been named one of the Los Angeles Business Journal's "Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles" for 2026. The LABJ’s annual list honors Los Angeles' top lawyers for their achievements within the city's business community. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits

    May 12, 2026 —
    In the case of County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com Read the full story...