BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Anaheim California condominium expert witness Anaheim California custom homes expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California multi family housing expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California casino resort expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California structural steel construction expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California condominiums 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

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    Massachusetts Federal Court Rejects Adria Towers, Finds Construction Defects Not an “Occurrence”

    The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    Substantial Completion Explained: What Contractors & Owners Should Know

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

    More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

    Report to Congress Calls for Framework to Cut Post-Quake Recovery Time

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    Top U.S. Counties Most at Risk for Tornado Damage in 2025

    Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance

    Kahana Feld Partner Dominic Donato Receives a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    David Uchida Joins Kahana Feld’s Los Angeles Office as Partner

    Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

    Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Construction Defects Claims Can Be Limited by Contract Says Washington Court

    Incorporation by Reference in Your Design Services Contract– What Does this Mean, and Are You at Risk? (Law Note)

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    Final Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

    BLOK, a Wired UK Hottest 100 Housing Market Startup, Gets Funding from a Renowned Group of Investors

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    LLMs in Construction: Where They Fail and Where They Shine

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Quick Note: Don’t Sue Your Arbitrator

    UPDATE: ACS Obtains Additional $13.6 Million for General Contractor Client After $19.2 Million Jury Trial Victory

    The DOL Claims Most Independent Contractors Are Employees

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

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

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

    Hong Kong Popping Housing Bubbles London Can’t Handle
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over four thousand general contracting and design related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a wide range of trial support and consulting services to builders and construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized builders, risk managers, legal professionals, owners, state and local government agencies. Employing in house assets which include construction cost, scheduling, and delay experts, professional engineers, ASPE certified professional estimators, and construction safety professionals, the firm brings regional experience and flexible capabilities to the Anaheim construction industry.

    Anaheim California construction cost estimating expert witnessAnaheim California slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California construction defect expert witnessAnaheim California architect expert witnessAnaheim California construction expert testimonyAnaheim California soil failure expert witnessAnaheim California contractor expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

    April 20, 2026 —
    In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Time to Negotiate Limitation on Remedies and Damages Is on the Front End

    February 10, 2026 —
    Remember, when it comes to contracts, the time to negotiate and enter into mutually agreed upon bargains is on the front end. And, if the contract is not negotiable, at least you know that and can make the business decision whether you want to accept the bargains and risks. If you don’t, well, you can walk away. Move onto another deal. If you do, then you make the business decision as to the bargains or risk transfers and accept them moving forward. One of those bargains and risks deals with a limitation on damages and remedies. In a recent dispute dealing with the sale of an aircraft, there was a provision dealing with the buyer and seller’s remedies in the event of a breach. (Similar to a real estate transaction or other buyer-seller scenario.) “Contract section 10.4(a) stated that if the buyer defaulted, the seller’s “exclusive remedies” were to keep the aircraft and the buyer’s deposit. Section 10.4(b) stated that if the seller defaulted by “fail[ing] to deliver the [aircraft] in accordance with the terms of [the contract],” the buyer’s “sole remedies” were the seller’s reimbursement of the buyer’s inspection costs.” Sky Aviation Holdings, LLC v. Aviation Unlimited, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2658c (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). As you can see, there was a limitation on the seller’s damages. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    California Enacts Change Order Fair Payment Act

    March 24, 2026 —
    For private works construction contracts entered on or after January 1, 2026, recent legislation establishes a claims and dispute resolution process for change orders. The law is codified at Civil Code § 8850. A synopsis of the pertinent provisions includes the following:
    1. Submitting a Claim. Contractors or subcontractors must submit a detailed, documented claim when requesting additional time or payment.
    2. Owner’s Response Time. The owner must meet and confer within thirty (30) days after receiving the claim. Within ten (10) days of meeting, the owner must provide a written statement identifying which portions of the claim are undisputed and which are disputed. An owner’s failure to respond is treated as disputing the entire claim.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Baker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at mjbaker@swlaw.com

    Insured General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage

    July 06, 2026 —
    The general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026). Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage. The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season

    April 08, 2026 —
    Artificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency. What often lags behind, however, is the contract framework governing how those tools are used—and how their outputs are treated when something goes wrong. On sophisticated construction projects, that gap can quickly become a dispute driver. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
    Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com

    White House Explores Opening Antitrust Probe on Homebuilders

    February 10, 2026 —
    Trump administration officials are exploring opening an antitrust investigation into US homebuilders as the White House sharpens its focus on tackling the country’s housing affordability crisis. The Department of Justice could open the probe in the coming weeks, according to people familiar with the discussions. No decision has been made and the administration may abandon the effort without launching an investigation, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing non-public information. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg and Leah Nylen, Bloomberg Read the full story...

    Can Anything Supersede Excel in AEC?

    April 27, 2026 —
    If there’s one piece of software that dominates the business world across industries, it’s Microsoft Excel. Can AI finally dethrone the mighty spreadsheet? Memorable Spreadsheet Moments Everyone has memorable spreadsheet moments. I have a few. For example, my then-architecture firm was involved in more than a dozen housing developments abroad. I developed an Excel workbook that took the required number of households as input and automatically generated a breakdown of buildings and their apartment types for AutoCAD. This was urban planning and architectural design done with a spreadsheet. I also developed business software using Excel for project portfolio management. The prototype was later scaled into a commercial SaaS that is now used globally. Another memorable moment was when a property owner told me their Excel file grew so large that it ran out of rows and columns. That must have been before 2007, when the maximum number of columns on a sheet was still just 256 and the maximum number of rows was 65,536. The current limits are 1,048,576 rows and 16,384 columns, which I hope no one will exceed. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Indiana District Court Finds Crane Inspection Services Do Not Trigger “Professional Services” Exclusion in Liability Policy

    February 17, 2026 —
    In Crane 1 Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Continental Ins. Co., 23-cv-205 (N.D. Ind. Jan 12, 2026), the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana had occasion to interpret the scope and meaning of the term “professional services” in an excess liability policy exclusion. By way of background, Robert Coppage was crushed by a crane while at work. He was seriously injured and later received a significant settlement in a state court civil action against the company that inspected the crane, Crane1. Crane1 sought coverage for the settlement under a first layer excess policy issued by Continental Insurance Company, which included an exclusion for any “liability arising out of the actual or alleged rendering of, or failure to render, any professional services by the Insured or any other person for whose acts the Insured is legally responsible.” The underlying complaint alleged that Crane1 was negligent in its modification, services, maintenance, inspection, and/or repair of the crane. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com