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

    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

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

    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

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    Houston’s High Housing Demand due to Employment Growth

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    How to Protect a Construction-Related Invention

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    Remodel Leaves Guitarist’s Home Leaky and Moldy

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Drought Dogs Developers in California's Soaring Housing Market

    Toll Brothers Surges on May Gain in Deposits for New Homes

    Putting 3D First, a Model Bridge Rises in Norway

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Foreclosures Decreased Nationally in September

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

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

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    How To Fix Oroville Dam

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named for Top-Tier Practice Areas in 2018 U.S. News – Best Law Firms List

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Power to the Office Worker

    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from approximately 5000 building and claims related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory provides a wide spectrum of trial support and consulting services to legal professionals and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides general construction investigation, trial and claims support services to the construction industry's most recognized companies, legal professionals, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. Utilizing in house resources which comprise design experts, civil / structural engineers, ICC Certified Inspectors, ASPE certified professional estimators, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAnaheim California delay claim expert witnessAnaheim California construction safety expertAnaheim California structural concrete expertAnaheim California slope failure expert witnessAnaheim California construction expert witness public projectsAnaheim California construction expert witness consultant
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    May 31, 2021 —
    While the starting point for assessing an insurer’s duty to defend requires comparing the allegations contained within a complaint to the language contained within the insured’s policy, the majority of states require an insurer to do more. In Alabama, a failure of the underlying complaint to allege damages falling within the policy’s terms is not necessarily fatal to coverage – if there are facts provable by admissible evidence to place the loss within coverage. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama recently examined Alabama’s broadened duty to defend standard in Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. Gates Builders, No. 20-00596, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83645 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2021). In Frankenmuth, the magistrate judge was tasked with determining whether the court should abstain from hearing an insurer’s declaratory judgment coverage action pending the resolution of the underlying state court action. The underlying state court action arose out of an allegedly defective construction project. Frankenmuth’s insured, Gates Builders, was hired to perform exterior and structural rehabilitation work at the Resort Conference Center Condominium (the Condominium) in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The project began in July 2014 and concluded in June 2015. In 2019, Gates Builders was informed that the Condominium’s decks were sagging. Gates Builders shored up the decks and provided the Condominium with a quote for the cost of repairs. In July 2020, the Condominium’s Association filed suit, alleging that the work performed in 2014 and 2015 was faulty and had caused damage to the Condominium. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Ms. Meta may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues

    August 16, 2021 —
    The court granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment, allowing an appraisal to go forward even with outstanding coverage issues in dispute. DC Plastic Products Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2021 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 95908 (D. N.J. May 19, 2021). DC Plastic's property was damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. Claims submitted to Westchester resulted in a payment of $951,102.89 to DC Plastic. The parties disagreed on whether further payments were due. In 2017, DC Plastic sued Westchester for additional payments. DC Plastic moved to compel an appraisal for its claims, requesting that the court appoint an umpire for the appraisal process. Westchester cross-moved to dismiss the case in its entirety. DC Plastic's complaint asked that the court appoint an umpire. The policy stated if the parties could not agree on the amount of loss, each party would select an appraiser, who would then agree upon an umpire. If they could not agree, either party could request the court to appoint the umpire. Therefore, the court was authorised to select the umpire here. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    June 21, 2021 —
    Zetlin & De Chiara was named a Band 1 Construction Law firm in the United States by the Legal 500 US in its annual guide. Described as a "boutique construction law firm with a deep bench and understanding of how a construction project is built and how to address disputes when they happen," Zetlin & De Chiara is routinely involved in projects across the US and internationally. Legal 500 selected Michael Zetlin, Michael De Chiara and Michael Vardaro to the Leading Lawyers list. Michael De Chiara was praised as an "expert in the field." Michael Zetlin was lauded for his representation of national and multi-national construction companies as well as premier owners, developers and contractors. Other members of the "very pragmatic" team who were recognized were Tara Mulrooney and Jim Terry. The Legal 500 US 2021 guide is a highly regarded legal directory which annually ranks law firms and legal professionals. It highlights legal teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporate counsel. Rankings are based on feedback from clients worldwide, submissions from law firms and interviews with leading private practice lawyers. About Zetlin & De Chiara: Zetlin & De Chiara LLP provides sophisticated legal and business counsel and advice to members of the construction community across the country including real estate owners and developers, design professionals, construction managers and contractors, and financial institutions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zetlin & De Chiara LLP

    NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

    October 04, 2021 —
    The condominium board at a 1,396-ft-tall residential tower on New York City’s Billionaires’ Row has sued the building’s developers, claiming to have identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects in common areas alone. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    July 05, 2021 —
    Critical path delay plays a central role in allocating responsibility for project delay. The interrelated concept of concurrency is also frequently determinative of entitlement on a range of claims including by owners for liquidated damages and by contractors for delay damages. What constitutes critical/concurrent delay, however, is hotly debated by scheduling experts. The lack of real consensus regarding how critical/concurrent delay should be determined and analyzed has created significant uncertainty in scheduling disputes. Indeed, courts have adopted differing and at times conflicting theories of concurrency that can produce divergent outcomes for the parties. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, stakeholders have increasingly adopted specialized contractual provisions and scheduling techniques which have significant implications for the evaluation of the companion concepts of criticality and concurrency. One such mechanism is float sequestration. Regardless of whether float sequestration is ultimately in the construction industry’s broader interest, stakeholders must be able to recognize its use and appreciate the implications for delay disputes on their projects. Simply defined, float is the number of days an activity can be delayed before affecting the project’s critical path (i.e., the longest chain of activities which determines the project’s minimal duration). Typically, only delays affecting the critical path can produce concurrent delay. Consequently, the concept of float is integral to understanding and resolving issues of both criticality and concurrency. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Brasco, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP and Matthew D. Baker, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP Mr. Brasco may be contacted at Mr. Baker may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Green Construction Claims: More of the Same

    May 10, 2021 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Musings welcomes back Timothy R. Hughes, Esq., LEED AP. Tim (@timrhughes on Twitter) is a Shareholder in the Arlington, Virginia firm of Bean, Kinney & Korman, P.C. In his practice as a business, corporate, and construction law attorney, Tim was the Chair of the Construction Law and Public Contracts Section of the Virginia State Bar. He was recognized by Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly as a 2010 “Leader in the Law” and a member of the Legal Elite for Construction Law for 2010 by Virginia Business Magazine. A regular speaker and writer, Tim is the lead editor of his firm blog, Virginia Real Estate, Land Use and Construction Law. Green construction liability risk has received a lot of discussion over time. My take is that sustainable design and construction projects present the same type of risk profile as other construction projects, with the caveat that there may be “a little more”. A little more risk. A little more lack of predictability. A little more process overlay. Thus, green construction claims really are just “more of the same”. I have watched and participated in the discussion. With regards to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation building, the reality is that any project can face challenges of product specification and performance, green or not. We can see plenty of examples where products have created tremendous risk and liability to the construction industry, the avalanche of EIFS litigation and Chinese drywall standing as just two of the most recent examples. A product failed, but that is nothing truly new. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute

    June 14, 2021 —
    Section 13a-149 of the Connecticut General Statutes, commonly known as Connecticut’s highway defect statute, provides that claims arising from injuries or damages to people or property resulting from a defective road or bridge can be asserted against a party responsible for maintaining that road or bridge. Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-149. The statute also extends to sidewalks and further provides that written notice of an alleged injury must be given to a defendant municipality within ninety days of the injury. Recently, in Dobie v. City of New Haven, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 162 (App. Ct. May 1, 2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s denial of a municipal defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss. The court held that even though the plaintiff attempted to assert allegations of negligence against the defendant municipality, Connecticut’s highway defect statute was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the requisite notice requirements, pursuant to the statute, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in denying the municipality’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Underlying Case In February of 2013, Plaintiff William Dobie filed suit against the City of New Haven alleging injuries and damages as a result of the negligence of a City of New Haven snowplow operator. Dobie’s claims arose from an incident that occurred on January 21, 2011, in which he was driving behind the City snowplow driver, who was in the process of plowing snow from a municipal street located in New Haven, Connecticut. As the defendant employee was operating his snowplow, he knocked off a manhole cover, causing Dobie’s vehicle to drive over the open manhole. Dobie claimed personal injuries as a result of his vehicle dropping into the open manhole, including injuries to his jaw. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christy Jachimowski, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Jachimowski may be contacted at

    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period

    October 04, 2021 —
    In a recent unpublished decision – Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.– the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a one-year contractual claim limitations clause was valid and enforceable. The Tadych decision is important because it reiterates the strict approach courts will take to a claim limitations clause less than the statutory six years for breach of contract claims prescribed by RCW 4.16.040(1). In other words, when the parties agree to shorten the limitations period, the agreement will be enforced barring any procedural or substantive unconscionability. In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract provided a one-year claim limitations clause in which claims could be raised, and that all claims not raised in the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Ms. Ingram may be contacted at