BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness St Augustine Florida tract home expert witness St Augustine Florida low-income housing expert witness St Augustine Florida custom home expert witness St Augustine Florida Medical building expert witness St Augustine Florida hospital construction expert witness St Augustine Florida high-rise construction expert witness St Augustine Florida condominium expert witness St Augustine Florida multi family housing expert witness St Augustine Florida structural steel construction expert witness St Augustine Florida housing expert witness St Augustine Florida parking structure expert witness St Augustine Florida condominiums expert witness St Augustine Florida retail construction expert witness St Augustine Florida mid-rise construction expert witness St Augustine Florida Subterranean parking expert witness St Augustine Florida custom homes expert witness St Augustine Florida office building expert witness St Augustine Florida casino resort expert witness St Augustine Florida production housing expert witness St Augustine Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness St Augustine Florida industrial building expert witness St Augustine Florida
    St Augustine Florida civil engineering expert witnessSt Augustine Florida roofing construction expertSt Augustine Florida construction cost estimating expert witnessSt Augustine Florida construction claims expert witnessSt Augustine Florida construction defect expert witnessSt Augustine Florida construction expert witnessSt Augustine Florida building code expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    St Augustine, 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 St Augustine 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

    St Augustine Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    St Augustine Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    St Augustine Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    St Augustine Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    St Augustine Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    St Augustine Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    St Augustine Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For St Augustine Florida


    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    Carin Ramirez and David McLain recognized among the Best Lawyers in America© for 2021

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

    Oregon to Add 258,000 Jobs by 2022, State Data Shows

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

    California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Key Legal Considerations for Modular Construction Contracts

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    Contractor Sued for Contract Fraud by Government

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Define the Forum and Scope of Recovery in Contract Disputes

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature
    Corporate Profile

    ST AUGUSTINE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The St Augustine, Florida Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    St Augustine, Florida

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    July 05, 2021 —
    As any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner. The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The 2021 Top 50 Construction Law Firms™

    June 14, 2021 —
    Vaccination rates continue to rise, mandates are loosening for returning to work and school, and a $2 trillion infrastructure bill is looming on the horizon, but contractors remain cautious and counseled by the legal experts who thrive in the complex field of construction law. According to the latest report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, construction employment numbers did not move much in April despite an increased demand for housing and a recovering economy. Due to continued fallout from the pandemic—and what seems like no end in sight for the rising costs of materials—contractors have been turning to construction law firms to navigate delayed projects, interpret contract language, assist in risk mitigation and ensure the road ahead is paved with understandable and protective clauses. For the 2021 survey for the annual U.S. ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™, Construction Executive’s editorial team reached out to dozens of attorneys at the nation’s best construction law firms to learn how the legal landscape is changing, as well as how legal teams are aiding clients with sharpening contract language and pivoting in response to challenges in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Cybele Tamulonis, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    June 07, 2021 —
    Five Lewis Brisbois partners and two Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2021 USA rankings list. Kansas City and Wichita Managing Partner Alan L. Rupe and Phoenix Managing Partner Carl F. Mariano were both ranked Band 1 for “Labor & Employment – Kansas” and “Insurance – Arizona,” respectively, while Minneapolis Partner Tina A. Syring was ranked Band 4 for “Labor & Employment – Minnesota,” and Washington D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton and Partner Karen C. Bennett were ranked Band 5 for “Environment – District of Columbia.” Significantly, Chambers also ranked Lewis Brisbois’ Kansas Labor & Employment Practice Band 2 and the firm’s Washington D.C. Environmental Practice Band 4. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    May 17, 2021 —
    When it comes to proving a construction cost, particularly a cost in dispute, the cost must be REASONABLE. Costs subject to claims must be reasonably incurred and the party incurring the costs must show the costs are reasonable. An example of the burden falling on the contractor to prove the reasonableness of costs is found in government contracting. “[T]here is no presumption that a [government] contractor is entitled to reimbursement ‘simply because it incurred…costs.’” Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Stated differently, a federal contractor is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness just because it incurs costs. Id. In government contracting, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (known as “FAR”) puts the burden of reasonableness on the contractor that incurred the costs. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Nomos LLP Partners Recognized in Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    August 16, 2021 —
    Nomos LLP partners Garret Murai and Jennifer Tang have been recognized in Thompson Reuter’s 2021 Northern California Super Lawyers and 2021 Northern California Rising Start lists in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the eighth consecutive year for Garret on the Super Lawyers list and the fifth consecutive year for Jennifer on the Rising Star list. The Super Lawyers list recognizes no more than 5 percent of attorneys in each state. The Rising Stars list recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state. To be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

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

    September 29, 2021 —
    In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    September 29, 2021 —
    Under Florida law, there is a claim dealing with the purchase and sale of residential real property known as a Johnson v. Davis or a non-disclosure claim: “[W]here the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” Lorber v. Passick, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1952a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). A seller’s duty to disclose extends to a seller’s real estate agent/broker. Id. A non-disclosure claim is asserted by the buyer of residential real property when the buyer discovers defects or damages with the real property that he believes materially affects the value of the property. While there may be the sentiment these are easy claims to prove, they are not. Remember, a non-disclosure claim deals with facts that materially affect the value of residential real property and are NOT readily observable. The use of the language “readily observable” has been found to mean:
    “[I]nformation [that] is within the diligent attention of any buyer. To exercise diligent attention…a buyer would be required to investigate any information furnished by the seller that a reasonable person in the buyer’s position would investigate and take reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts relating to the property and to discovery them—if, of course, they are reasonably ascertainable.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    August 30, 2021 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com