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

    Do Hurricane-Prone Coastal States Need to Update their Building Codes?

    New Florida Bill Shortens Time for Construction-Defect Lawsuits

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

    Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

    Tenn. Court of Appeals Finally Clarifies Contractor Licensing Laws, Holding An “Underlicensed” Contractor Is Violation of Tennessee’s Consumer Protection Act

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    House Committee Kills Colorado's 2015 Attainable Housing Bill

    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

    “Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

    Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Construction-Industry Clients Need Well-Reasoned and Clear Policies on Recording Zoom and Teams Meetings

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    The Non-Imputation Affidavit in Real Estate Title Insurance

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    AI Systems and the Real Estate Industry

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

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

    America’s Bridges and the Need for Bridge Infrastructure Investment

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    The Salt Lake Tribune Names Snell & Wilmer a Winner of the Top Workplaces 2025 Award

    Labor Intensive

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    Anatomy of an Insurance Dispute

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

    Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer

    Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Drawing from more than 4500 construction and design 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 seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Employing in house assets which include design experts, civil / structural engineers, ICC Certified Inspectors, ASPE certified professional estimators, the construction experts group brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California consulting architect expert witnessAnaheim California concrete expert witnessAnaheim California building envelope expert witnessAnaheim California construction claims expert witnessAnaheim California construction code expert witnessAnaheim California forensic architectAnaheim California engineering expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Ball Janik LLP Elevates Construction Litigation Attorneys Keegan A. Berry and Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner

    February 02, 2026 —
    Orlando, FL – January 28, 2026 – Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce the elevation of Keegan A. Berry and Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner, effective 2026. Both attorneys are dedicated to their clients and have provided significant contributions to the firm's Construction Defect and Litigation practice. "Keegan and Nicholas exemplify the excellence and client-focused approach that define Ball Janik LLP," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "Their elevation to Partner reflects not only their exceptional legal skills and dedication to our clients but also their commitment to advancing the firm's mission. We are proud to recognize their achievements and look forward to their continued leadership." Berry is based in Ball Janik LLP's Orlando office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. Throughout his career, Berry has focused on complex litigation and resolving matters through arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, and trial, with extensive experience both prosecuting and defending construction claims on behalf of owners, contractors, and manufacturers. His practice also encompasses complex commercial and general litigation, including business torts, professional liability, products liability, and general liability. "I'm honored to continue serving Florida's business and property owner communities as a partner at Ball Janik, leveraging my experience to deliver efficient, results-driven solutions in even the most complex construction disputes," said Berry. Vargo is based in Ball Janik LLP's Tampa office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. He focuses on Construction Litigation, representing residential and commercial property owners in construction defect litigation. Vargo has spent most of his career in construction defect law with Ball Janik and has been instrumental in growing Ball Janik's presence in Florida's west coast. "Becoming a partner at Ball Janik is both a privilege and a responsibility, and I look forward to continuing to advocate fiercely for our clients while holding accountable those who attempt to evade their obligations," said Vargo. About Ball Janik LLP Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com/.

    Successful KF Defense Results in Dismissal with Prejudice

    January 13, 2026 —
    Kahana Feld Partner Elliott Wright and Senior Counsel William “Pat” Durland secured a major victory for their client with a complete dismissal of all claims by establishing that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Texas Tort Claims Act’s jurisdictional prerequisites through our Plea to the Jurisdiction. Our Plea to the Jurisdiction demonstrated that governmental immunity applies unless a Plaintiff can prove a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver, and that the Plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving such a waiver. In this case, we showed that the Plaintiff provided no timely statutory notice as required by §101.101 of the TTCA and the City Charter’s six-month notice requirement, making jurisdiction impossible to invoke. Without proper notice—formal or actual—the court has no power to hear the case, and the defect cannot be cured by amendment.  Reprinted courtesy of Elliott Wright, Kahana Feld and William "Pat" Durland, Kahana Feld Mr. Wright may be contacted at ewright@kahanafeld.com Mr. Durland may be contacted at wdurland@kahanafeld.com Read the full story...

    California Court Affirms $1.8 Million Judgment Against HOA for Failing to Investigate and Remediate Water Intrusion

    November 04, 2025 —
    When an HOA ignores its duties under its covenants and restrictions, the consequences can be devastating. In Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Association (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2025, No. H052560), a Santa Clara couple secured a $1.8 million judgment after their condominium was rendered uninhabitable due to water intrusion, mold, and a sinkhole caused by an abandoned well beneath the property. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding that the HOA’s delay, deception, and failure to act breached its duties under the CC&Rs. What Went Wrong at Rancho Palma Grande HOA Retirees Doug Ridley and Sherry Shen owned a condominium in Santa Clara County. In 2018, their tenants discovered persistent water pooling in the crawlspace beneath the unit - part of the building’s common area under the HOA’s control. The issue worsened over time, culminating in severe water damage, mold growth, and ultimately, a sinkhole beneath the living room floor. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Soot Constitutes Property Damage

    March 17, 2026 —
    Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025). A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire. Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Risk Associated with Design-Build Project Delivery Method

    October 21, 2025 —
    The design-build project delivery method is when the design-builder (typically the contractor) is responsible for both the design and construction of the project. Thus, the responsibility for both the design and construction falls under the same umbrella and, naturally, carries more risk. The discussion below demonstrates risk involved in the design-build project delivery method, particularly in the government contracting arena:
    Design-build contracts are common for construction, renovations, and repair projects, where the government provides the contractor with its requirements, but the contractor is free to exercise its ingenuity in achieving that objective or standard of performance and selecting the means to do so. It is not uncommon for issues to arise in design-build contracts. One of the more common issues is when the contract describes a certain requirement, but later during the design process, the contractor will submit in the 35% or 100% design submittal with a lower requirement. The government will unknowingly approve that design, not realizing the contractor may have “slipped in” or made an error on one of the requirements; thus, the approved 100% design has a lower requirement as compared to the contract. In these situations, we have found that the government is justified in demanding the contractor provide the requirements specified in the RFP and resulting contract.
    Thus, our long-held rule has been that the government cannot properly be blamed for approving the design when the contractor failed to inform the government that its design deviated from Task Order minimum requirements.
    Appeals of - Meltech Corporation, Inc., ASBCA No. 61766, 2025 WL 2166133 (ASBCA 2025) (internal citations omitted).
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    To Settle or Not Settle: Factors to Weigh and Practical Considerations

    January 13, 2026 —
    Deciding to settle a construction dispute is often wrought with difficulty, requiring the decision maker to evaluate a number of factors. Nevertheless, there are no hard and fast rules that apply when advising a party whether or not they should settle a dispute. Yet the vast majority of construction disputes do settle before going to trial or arbitration. In fact, recent statistics show that approximately 95% of all civil cases, including construction disputes, settle before trial[1]. However, whether settlement is always the best choice depends on several factors to be discussed here. Merits of Your Case First and foremost are the merits of your claims and defenses against any claims that are asserted against you. Construction disputes are inherently fact sensitive, and the merits of a case are driven by the facts of the dispute. Simple breach of contract actions for balances of unpaid funds for the work and materials that have been provided and installed on a project make weighing the merits of the affirmative claim relatively simple. However, these types of “collection cases” stand in stark contrast to complex construction delay claims for equitable adjustment where there exist competing and numerous causes of the delays. In addition, there are complicated legal principles applicable to whether there is entitlement to compensation for the delay or simply an extension of time. Construction defect claims where technical engineering issues are involved also present a heightened level of complexity that may make such cases difficult to prove on the merits. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

    How to Document Changes and Preserve Claims Without Starting a Fight

    December 02, 2025 —
    Construction is a team sport, but you can play nice while still preserving your contractual rights. In every construction project, changes happen and disagreements arise. The trouble comes when during formal dispute resolution months (or years) later, the parties argue about the basic facts of what the issue was, what was authorized, who knew, and whether notice was given. In formal dispute resolution, the most compelling evidence is the contemporaneous, factual documentation in the project record, but many fail to document these issues for fear of harming the relationship with the owner, general contractor, or subcontractor. This article provides practical guidance on how to document changes and potential claims in a way that preserves relationships and avoids escalation during the project itself. Here’s how to document changes (or your disagreement) to preserve your contract rights and ability to make a claim later, without jeopardizing the working relationship during construction. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

    Construction Liens and the “Substantial Performance” Doctrine

    April 08, 2026 —
    In a recent case dealing with a construction lien, the driving issue was whether the air conditioning contractor “substantially performed” before recording its construction lien against residential property. The importance here pertains to the substantial performance doctrine with respect to construction liens. The Third District Court of Appeal explained, with relevant citations, this doctrine as follows: Under Florida law, a contractor is entitled to a mechanic’s lien if he complies with all provisions of Chapter 713, governing construction liens, and “has substantially performed the contract.” Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quotation omitted); Langley v. Knowles, 958 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The substantial performance doctrine recognizes that a contactor who complies with all of the provisions of the contactor’s lien statute is entitled to enforce a lien if he has substantially, but not completely, performed his contractual obligations.”). Substantial performance is performance “so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisee’s failure to render full performance.” Ocean Ridge Dev. Corp. v. Quality Plastering, Inc., 247 So. 2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com