• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Chattahoochee Florida condominiums expert witness Chattahoochee Florida high-rise construction expert witness Chattahoochee Florida tract home expert witness Chattahoochee Florida townhome construction expert witness Chattahoochee Florida landscaping construction expert witness Chattahoochee Florida custom homes expert witness Chattahoochee Florida Medical building expert witness Chattahoochee Florida condominium expert witness Chattahoochee Florida parking structure expert witness Chattahoochee Florida custom home expert witness Chattahoochee Florida production housing expert witness Chattahoochee Florida multi family housing expert witness Chattahoochee Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Chattahoochee Florida structural steel construction expert witness Chattahoochee Florida housing expert witness Chattahoochee Florida industrial building expert witness Chattahoochee Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Chattahoochee Florida office building expert witness Chattahoochee Florida institutional building expert witness Chattahoochee Florida low-income housing expert witness Chattahoochee Florida retail construction expert witness Chattahoochee Florida
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Chattahoochee, 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 Chattahoochee 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Chattahoochee Florida

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Secured by Lewis Brisbois in Coverage Dispute Involving San Francisco 49ers’ Levi Stadium

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” and Tier 2 for Los Angeles and Orange County by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2022

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar

    Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

    KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a C-. It’s an Improvement Though

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Updates to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

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

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    The G2G Year in Review: 2020

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

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    White and Williams Earns National "Best Law Firm" Rankings from US News

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Has Hydrogen's Time Finally Come?

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    Conflicting Exclusions Result in Duty to Defend

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace
    Corporate Profile


    With over four thousand construction and design related expert designations, the Chattahoochee, Florida Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to builders and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation, testimony, and support 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 assets which include construction cost, scheduling, and delay experts, professional engineers, ASPE certified professional estimators, and construction safety professionals, the firm brings regional experience and local capabilities to Chattahoochee and the surrounding areas.

    Chattahoochee Florida construction expert witnessChattahoochee Florida engineering consultantChattahoochee Florida construction defect expert witnessChattahoochee Florida architect expert witnessChattahoochee Florida construction defect expert witnessChattahoochee Florida engineering expert witnessChattahoochee Florida delay claim expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Chattahoochee, Florida

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    August 30, 2021 —
    Consider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be? The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild, W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild Mr. Cohen may be contacted at Mr. Mason may be contacted at Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at Read the full story...

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    October 18, 2021 —
    In the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers. Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located. Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775). Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    November 01, 2021 —
    Beginning more than one century ago, owners and contractors generally have adopted the convention of including liquidated damages in their contracts to fix potential liability for delay (and other losses) at the inception of the project. The proliferation of liquidated damages clauses in modern contracts can be attributed to economic and legal factors. From the owner’s standpoint, it may be exceedingly difficult to prove the actual cost impact of a delayed completion of the project. A properly calculated liquidated damages rate would save the owner the significant expense of quantifying its delay damages. On the contractor’s side, a reasonable amount of liquidated damages may be preferable to uncapped or unknown liability, allowing the contractor to more accurately price its bid and efficiently allocate risk. Coinciding with, or perhaps a leading cause of, the industry’s embrace of liquidated damages provisions, was the shift in courts throughout the country from disfavoring such clauses to accepting them (within limits) as an appropriate exercise of contract rights. While some variation exists among the states, courts have generally recognized that liquidated damages clauses are a viable alternative to proof of actual loss so long as (i) actual losses were difficult to quantify, and (ii) the stipulated sum bears a reasonable relationship to the anticipated loss at the time of contracting. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356. Conversely, a clause that penalizes the breaching party rather than serving as an estimate of probable loss is likely to be found unenforceable. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP
    Mr. Tuckman may be contacted at

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    June 14, 2021 —
    This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BP PLC, et al. v Mayor and City of Baltimore The issue the court confronted was a procedural matter: Can the defendant energy companies use the federal removal statutes (see 28 USC Section 1442) to remove a state law climate change lawsuit to federal court? Here, a group of energy companies were sued by the mayor and city council of Baltimore in state court, where they alleged that the defendants had concealed the adverse environmental effects of the fossil fuel products they promoted and sold in Baltimore City. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in many state courts, where typically it is alleged that the defendants can be sued on various common law theories. Rather than defend these cases in state court, the defendants have sought to remove these cases to federal court because climate change liability appears to be an issue that should be settled at the federal level. These efforts have been unsuccessful, with most federal trial and appellate courts holding that the reasons cited for removal (oftentimes the federal officer removal statute) have not been persuasive. In this case, both the Maryland federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals held they had no jurisdiction to authorize removal, and thus returned the case to the state court. Noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a removal action could be countenanced under Section 1442, thus creating a circuit split, the Supreme Court held that a straightforward reading of the removal statute empowers the reviewing court to examine all theories for removal that a district court has rejected. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit where it can decide, “in the first instance,” whether there actually exist grounds to remove this case to federal court. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    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 full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    August 10, 2021 —
    What happens when construction material prices abruptly rise by 15%, 35%, 50%? Moreover, what happens to a construction project when such volatility occurs? While there is no definite answer, delays in procuring such materials and associated cost overruns will likely impact the construction project. The last 15 months contractors have had to work through extraordinary construction material price increases, such as a 90% price increase for lumber from April 2020 to April 2021. While there is no statistic quantifying the impact these increases have had on the construction industry, the increases surely have had an influence, whether it has been through lost profits, delays, or damage to contractors’ otherwise strong reputation for timely performance. Considerations Prior To Contract Execution The first way to mitigate price escalation is identifying materials most susceptible to price volatility during the bidding process and then having an open discussion with upstream parties regarding the potential price volatility. Additionally, the bid may also include either (1) an allowance for the materials providing additional funds, if necessary, should the material price increase, or (2) a shortened timeframe in which the bid is open, which would lessen the time in which a price shift may occur. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
    Mr. Padove may be contacted at

    US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

    November 15, 2021 —
    The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Nov. 6 stayed the Biden administration's requirement that workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing potential "grave statutory and constitutional" issues raised by opponents of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's emergency temporary standard announced on Nov. 4. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at Mr. Yoders may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    June 07, 2021 —
    When sued for construction defects caused by the subcontractor, the general contractor was granted summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the subcontractor's policy. Meritage Homes of Ga. v. Grange Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84591 (N.D. Ga. March 23, 2021). Meritage built a home for the owners. Easterwood Excavating, Inc. was the subcontractor for excavation and grading work. Meritage was named an additional insured under Easterwood's policy with Grange. After construction was completed, the owners were experiencing severe flooding after rain storms purportedly due to defects in the grading, site preparation and excavation. The owners filed an arbitration against Meritage for damages. The owners alleged that Meritage improperly excavated and graded their lot, causing water to collect and pool in their yard. Meritage denied all liability and looked to Easterwood and Grange for defense and indemnification. Grange denied coverage, contending there was no occurrence which resulted in property damage. The arbitrator found that the folding of water was caused by Meritage's improper grading of the lot. A Final Award in the amount of $129,530.93 was issued against Meritage. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at