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

    The Treasures Inside Notre Dame Cathedral

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    Agree to Use your “Professional Best"? You may Lose Insurance Coverage! (Law Note)

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    Governmental Immunity Waived for Independent Contractor - Lopez v. City of Grand Junction

    Repairs to Hurricane-damaged Sanibel Causeway Completed in 105 Days

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Agent Not Liable for Loss Given Insured’s Vague Instructions for Coverage

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/30/23) – AI Predicts Home Prices, Construction’s Effect on the Economy, and Could Streamline Communications for Developers

    California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Surged in August to Six-Year High

    The Cross-Party Exclusion: The Hazards of Additional Named Insured Provisions

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

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

    Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

    Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

    Contractor’s Poor Workmanship: How You Can Deal With It – Bad Contractor Series Part 3

    California’s Wildfire Dilemma: Put Houses or Forests First?

    Consumer Prices Rising as U.S. Housing Stabilizes: Economy

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    Las Vegas Team Obtains Complete Dismissal of a Traumatic Brain Injury Claim

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    Patrick Haggerty Promoted to Counsel

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    Mountain States Super Lawyers 2019 Recognizes 21 Nevada Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    CA Civil Code § 8850: What Private Multi-state Owners and Developers Building in California in 2026 Need to Know

    Designer of World’s Tallest Building Wants to Turn Skyscrapers Into Batteries

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

    US Homes Face Costly Retrofits for Induction Stoves, EV Chargers

    Navigating the DOT’s Interim Final Rule on DBE Certification Standards - and Preparing for the (Bumpy) Road Ahead

    The Moment of Truth

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

    Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately 5000 construction claims related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a comprehensive construction and design expert support solution to builders, risk managers, and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides construction claims and trial support services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Employing in house resources which comprise testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, licensed general and specialty contractors, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim region.

    Anaheim California slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California civil engineer expert witnessAnaheim California building expertAnaheim California expert witnesses fenestrationAnaheim California construction project management expert witnessesAnaheim California roofing construction expertAnaheim California construction claims expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Florida’s Proposed HB 255: A Quiet Shift That Could Reshape Condo Defect Liability

    January 21, 2026 —
    In Florida, developers and contractors work under strict clocks. Section 95.11(3)(b), Florida Statutes, sets two firm deadlines for construction claims: a four-year statute of limitations and a seven-year statute of repose. Those timelines govern when an owner or condominium association may pursue claims for alleged defects. Once the repose period ends, the claim is barred regardless of when the problem surfaced. Condominium law complicates that scheme. Section 718.124 delays the start of the limitation and repose periods on association claims until control of the board shifts from the developer to the unit owners. The logic is simple: a developer-controlled board cannot be expected to sue the developer. The practical effect is more sweeping. If turnover occurs late in the life of a project, the repose period may remain tolled for years, extending exposure far beyond the seven years that apply everywhere else. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matt Maranges, Jones Walker
    Mr. Maranges may be contacted at mmaranges@joneswalker.com

    Civil Megaprojects: The Evolving Use of Dispute Prevention and Collaborative Delivery Methods in Public Contracting

    January 13, 2026 —
    Civil megaprojects are large, complex ventures in civil engineering and construction that typically cost over $1 billion to construct. These projects generally have significant and long-lasting impacts on the economy, environment and society, and involve multiple public and private stakeholders. Typical civil megaprojects include infrastructure projects, such as highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, dams, power plants and public buildings, which require extensive planning, design, coordination and construction over an extended period of time. In the United States, there is over $500 billion worth of civil megaprojects in the pipeline, with an average of four megaprojects per month in 2024 and a total monthly value of $9.2 billion.[i] Here are some recent examples of civil megaprojects: The Hudson Tunnel Project (a portion of the Gateway Program), under construction in the states of New York and New Jersey, involves the construction of two new tunnels and the renovation of aging rail tunnels used by Amtrak and New Jersey Transit that were damaged by Superstorm Sandy along the Northeast Corridor. This has been deemed one of the most important infrastructure projects in the country. It is projected to be completed in 2027 at a cost of over $16 billion.[ii] Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa D. Love, JAMS

    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...

    Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements

    April 14, 2026 —
    The ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project. Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Abby Dvorkin, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Dvorkin may be contacted at advorkin@swlaw.com

    Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation

    May 14, 2026 —
    If you are entertaining a differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s. In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    When Rule 702 Motions Fail: A Close Look at AECOM v. Flatiron

    February 02, 2026 —
    In AECOM Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Flatiron | AECOM, LLC, 2024 WL 22640 (D. Colo. 2024), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado addressed when expert testimony is not subject to be limited or excluded pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Background In 2015, AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (“AECOM”) and Flatiron | AECOM, LLC (“Flatiron”) entered into an agreement, in which they agreed to work together to assemble a design/build team for the purposes of submitting a proposal to the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (“CDOT”) construction project known as C-470 Tolled Express Lanes Segment 1 Design-Build Project (the “Project”). AECOM provided the design and engineering services, and Flatiron submitted the proposal to CDOT. On or about June 16, 2016, CDOT awarded Flatiron the Project. Flatiron later claimed that AECOM’s design failed to follow basic engineering and project requirements. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation

    May 14, 2026 —
    A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure. Background of the Case King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

    EPA Steps Back, Arizona Moves Forward

    May 12, 2026 —
    In a significant development for Arizona’s business community and environmental policymakers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has paused its planned reclassification of Maricopa County from “Moderate” to “Serious” ozone nonattainment status pursuant to the Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This decision marks a shift in federal air policy — one that recognizes the unique challenges faced by regions like metro Phoenix, where environmental conditions beyond local control are often key contributors to air quality readings. The EPA’s move follows a series of meetings between EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, Arizona elected officials, and business and civic leaders, including a recent roundtable in Phoenix convened by U.S. Senator Mark Kelly. In announcing the pause, Zeldin acknowledged the need for flexibility and fairness in the application of Clean Air Act standards, especially when emissions from other states, nations, and natural events significantly influence local air quality. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer, John Habib, Snell & Wilmer and Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com Mr. Habib may be contacted at jhabib@swlaw.com Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Read the full story...