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

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    Repair of Fractured Girders Complete at Shuttered Salesforce Transit Center

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Courthouse Reporter Series: Two Recent Cases Address Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster

    From Fantasy to Fact: Cristina Andersson on Our Robotic Future

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Construction Robotics Works Where Variation Ends

    Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    Underlying Complaint Alleges Possibility of Coverage, Triggering Duty to Defend

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    Defending OSHA and a Call to Action Against Funding Cuts

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    Summary Judgment for Insurer on Construction Defect Claim Reversed

    Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

    Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?

    Balancing the Right to Repair With Evidence Preservation in Construction Defect Litigation

    Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates Awarded Silver Star Award at WCC Construction Defect Seminar

    A Lesson from the Criminal Courtroom to Construction Contractors About Videos and Photos

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Attorney Fee Award Under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act

    After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

    Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Are You Overpromising on Your Construction Contracts? Here's How to Build With Transparency

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    Spotting Problem Projects

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

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Colorado Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on What Arbitration-Related Orders are Appealable
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over 4500 construction, architectural, and engineering related expert designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory provides a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to attorneys and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides building claims investigation and expert services to the industry's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, real estate investment trusts, risk managers, owners, as well as a variety of municipalities and government offices. Utilizing in house resources which include registered architects, professional engineers, licensed general and specialty contractors, the firm brings a wealth of experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California window expert witnessAnaheim California building expertAnaheim California multi family design expert witnessAnaheim California construction claims expert witnessAnaheim California reconstruction expert witnessAnaheim California ada design expert witnessAnaheim California building code compliance expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits

    July 27, 2026 —
    Levi W. Barrett, Co-Managing Partner of Peckar & Abramson’s New Jersey office, Co-Chair of the firm’s Construction Contracts & Risk Management team, and Executive Committee Member, was recently quoted in “New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits,” an article written by Engineering News-Record (ENR). The article examines New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s executive order temporarily halting state environmental permit reviews for certain large-scale data center projects while regulators develop a comprehensive framework to address the sector’s energy demands, water consumption, environmental impacts, and effects on local communities. It also explores the broader implications of the moratorium for developers, contractors, investors, and other stakeholders, as well as the ongoing debate between economic development, AI-driven infrastructure growth, and environmental and utility ratepayer concerns. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com

    Samuel Alhadeff Represents LGI Homes in Acquisition and Re-Entitlement of Maravilla Estates

    July 06, 2026 —
    Temecula Partner Samuel Alhadeff recently represented LGI Homes in its acquisition and re-entitlement of Maravilla Estates, a 169-lot active adult community located in San Jacinto, California. The acquisition and re-entitlement of the project provide LGI Homes with the opportunity to deliver much-needed age-qualified housing in one of Riverside County's growing residential markets. The community includes a recorded final map and finished lots, as well as future development inventory and planned amenities, positioning the project for continued development and completion. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Kahana Feld Opens New Office in Sacramento, Adding Key Litigator and Expanding Northern California Footprint

    August 24, 2026 —
    IRVINE, CA – Aug. 11, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce the opening of a new office in Sacramento, CA. This will be the firm’s 19th office across the United States. Partner Melvin F. Marcia has joined Kahana Feld and will lead the opening of the Sacramento office. He is joined by attorneys Matthew Brenner and Britney Lucchesi as well as paralegal Michelle Welcker. “We’re excited to welcome Melvin to the Kahana Feld team and expand our footprint in Northern California,” said Amir Kahana, Firmwide Managing Partner of Kahana Feld. “His addition strengthens Kahana Feld’s capabilities and will allow us to work more closely with our general liability, construction defect, and labor and employment clients in the Sacramento area while continuing to provide the level of service and experience they have come to expect from our firm.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld

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

    July 20, 2026 —
    The insurer’s motion for summary judgment seeking to eliminate the insured’s claims for damage from a water leak, bad faith and punitive damages failed. Nargizyan v, State Farm General Ins. Co., 2026 Cal App. LEXIS 302 (Cal. Ct. App. April 15, 2026). The insured noticed tiles on his kitchen floor were warmer than usual. He found water dripping from the top of the crawl space under the house. He noticed water was “dripping in different places” but not pouring like a faucet. “There were too many places to count where water was dripping and there was water all over the place.” 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...

    From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight

    October 06, 2026 —
    On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs. This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    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

    373 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    October 06, 2026 —
    PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that 373 of the firm’s attorneys were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® including the prestigious “Lawyer of the Year” honors, and “Ones to Watch” list. Attorneys listed as Ones to Watch typically have been in practice for five to nine years. “Lawyer of the Year” recognition is awarded to individual lawyers with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic region. Only one lawyer is recognized for each practice area and location. The following Snell & Wilmer attorneys were named 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” award recipients: Cortland P. Andrews, Troy J. Aramburu, Brian L. Blaylock, M. Lawrence Brown, Brian D. Cunningham, Michael M. Donahey, Jason Ebe, Matthew P. Fischer, Brett W. Johnson, Nathan G. Kanute, William A. Kastin, Timothy J. Kay, James D. Kilroy, Joseph A. Kroeger, Matthew L. Lalli, John F. Lomax, Anne M. Meyer, Robin L. Miskell, Patrick J. Paul, Amit D. Ranade, and M. Roxanne Veliz. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer