BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building expert witness Tamarac Florida condominiums expert witness Tamarac Florida casino resort expert witness Tamarac Florida structural steel construction expert witness Tamarac Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Tamarac Florida low-income housing expert witness Tamarac Florida tract home expert witness Tamarac Florida hospital construction expert witness Tamarac Florida custom home expert witness Tamarac Florida parking structure expert witness Tamarac Florida Medical building expert witness Tamarac Florida townhome construction expert witness Tamarac Florida condominium expert witness Tamarac Florida retail construction expert witness Tamarac Florida high-rise construction expert witness Tamarac Florida housing expert witness Tamarac Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Tamarac Florida multi family housing expert witness Tamarac Florida institutional building expert witness Tamarac Florida custom homes expert witness Tamarac Florida production housing expert witness Tamarac Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Tamarac Florida
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Tamarac, 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 Tamarac 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
    http://www.tricountyhba.com

    Tallahassee Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1064
    1835 Fiddler Court
    Tallahassee, FL 32308
    http://www.tallyba.com

    Building Industry Association of Okaloosa-Walton Cos
    Local # 1056
    1980 Lewis Turner Blvd
    Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
    http://www.biaow.org

    Home Builders Association of West Florida
    Local # 1048
    4400 Bayou Blvd Suite 45
    Pensacola, FL 32503
    http://www.westfloridabuilders.com

    Florida Home Builders Association (State)
    Local # 1000
    PO Box 1259
    Tallahassee, FL 32302
    http://www.fhba.com

    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055
    http://www.buildcolumbiacounty.com

    Northeast Florida Builders Association
    Local # 1024
    103 Century 21 Dr Ste 100
    Jacksonville, FL 32216
    http://www.nefba.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Tamarac Florida

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    Surviving the Construction Law Backlog: Nontraditional Approaches to Resolution

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

    Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    Florida Condo Collapse Shows Town’s Rich, Middle-Class Divide

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    Arguing Cardinal Change is Different than Proving Cardinal Change

    Nevada Judge says Class Analysis Not Needed in Construction Defect Case

    A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    Report to Congress Calls for Framework to Cut Post-Quake Recovery Time

    Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry

    Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    Carroll Brock of Larchmont Homes Dies at Age 88

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

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

    Florida’s Fourth District Appeals Court Clarifies What Actions Satisfy Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    Sales of New Homes in U.S. Increased 5.4% in July to 507,000

    Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology
    Corporate Profile

    TAMARAC FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over four thousand construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Tamarac, Florida Construction Expert Directory provides a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups concerned with the effective resolution of construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides construction related litigation support and expert witness services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. In connection with in house assets which include construction cost and scheduling experts, registered design professionals, forensic engineers, certified professional estimators, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Tamarac region.

    Tamarac Florida architecture expert witnessTamarac Florida expert witness roofingTamarac Florida engineering consultantTamarac Florida reconstruction expert witnessTamarac Florida construction expert witnessTamarac Florida construction expert witness consultantTamarac Florida construction expert witness public projects
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Tamarac, Florida

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    July 25, 2021 —
    Wilke Fleury is proud to announce that 15 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2021 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine. Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. 1 of 15, Michael Polis, was also recognized on Page 9. Polis’ second job as a farmer was highlighted with a column and some neat photos. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

    COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry

    July 11, 2021 —
    1. Can employers in the construction industry require employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of employment? In short, it depends. Back in December 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explained that, generally speaking (and under federal law), employers can require employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there are a few caveats. First, certain employees may need to be excused from a mandatory vaccination requirement as a reasonable accommodation unless it will present undue hardship. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with a covered disability that prevents them from receiving the vaccine. (Fact sheets for the COVID-19 vaccines include examples of some of the underlying medical conditions that may result in an accommodation request.) And under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are similarly required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, or observances that prevent them from getting the vaccine. Employers requiring the vaccination would be wise to consult with an experienced employment lawyer before denying an accommodation. Accommodation issues stemming from administration of the COVID-19 vaccine (and COVID-19 more generally) are likely to plague employers for a while, so getting ahead of this issue is key. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Spell, Jones Walker LLP
    Ms. Spell may be contacted at mspell@joneswalker.com

    JAMS Announces Updated Construction Rules

    June 21, 2021 —
    Irvine, Calif. – JAMS, the largest private provider of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services worldwide, is pleased to announce it has revised and updated its Construction Arbitration Rules & Procedures and Expedited Construction Arbitration Rules & Procedures, effective June 1. These Rules were updated to reflect the latest developments and trends in construction arbitration. In response to the transition to virtual and hybrid proceedings, Rule 22 makes explicit the arbitrator’s full authority to conduct the hearing in person, virtually or in a combined form, as well as with participants in more than one geographic location. To support access to case documents throughout the proceedings, Rule 8 aligns electronic filing and service with the functionality of JAMS Access, a centralized, secure online case management platform. Additional rules were created or revised to clarify and strengthen the authority of the arbitrator. Key changes include allowing an arbitrator to withhold approval of any intended change in party representation that could compromise the proceedings or the final award, to set a hearing without consulting a party that he or she reasonably believes will not participate and to permit a party to file a motion for summary disposition of a claim if the arbitrator believes that party has demonstrated the motion is likely to succeed. About JAMS – Local Solutions. Global Reach. Founded in 1979, JAMS is the largest private provider of alternative dispute resolution services worldwide. JAMS successfully resolves and manages business and legal disputes by providing efficient, cost-effective and impartial ways to overcome barriers at any stage of conflict. JAMS offers customized in-person, virtual and hybrid resolution services locally and globally through a combination of industry-specific experience, first-class client service, the latest technology and highly trained mediators and arbitrators. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of JAMS

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    September 06, 2021 —
    Virginia Code Sec. 11-4.1 makes indemnification provisions in construction contracts that are so broad as to indemnify the indemnitee from its own negligence unenforceable. Of course, this begs the question as to what language of indemnification provisions make them unenforceable. A case from the City of Chesapeake Virginia Circuit Court examined this question. In Wasa Props., LLC v. Chesapeake Bay Contrs., Inc., 103 Va. Cir 423 [unfortunately I can’t find a copy to which to link], Wasa Properties (“Wasa”) hired Chesapeake Bay Contractors (“CBC”) to perform utility work at Lake Thrasher in the Tidewater area of Virginia. Wasa then alleged that CBC breached the contract and caused over $400,000 in damages due to incorrectly installed water lines. Wasa used the following indemnification language as the basis for its suit:
    To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner and his agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney’s fees arising out of or resulting from the performance of the Work.
    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

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    May 03, 2021 —
    Insurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, have a concealment or fraud provision that, in essence, gives the insurer an out if the insured submits a fraudulent claim, a false claim, or conceals material facts. Unlike a traditional fraud claim where a party needs to prove intent, the provision is broad enough that it does not require any intent behind making a false statement. See Mezadieu v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D691c (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For this reason, and as exemplified below, do NOT blindly rely on a public adjuster or loss consultant’s estimate that contains false statements because those false statements, particularly if you know they are false, can play out badly for you! Review the estimate and ask questions about it to make sure you understand what is being included in the loss or damages estimate. In Mezadieu, a homeowner submitted a claim to her property insurance carrier due to a second-floor water leak emanating from her bathroom. She submitted an estimate from her public adjuster that included damages for her kitchen cabinets directly below the second-floor bathroom, as well as other items on her first-floor. Her carrier denied coverage based on the exclusion that the policy excludes damage caused by “[c]onstant or repeated seepage of water or steam…which occurs over a period of time.” 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

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    May 10, 2021 —
    One of the thorns in the side of every construction defect defense litigator is the implied warranty claim. The “implied warranty” is a promise that Colorado law is “implied” into every contract for a sale of a new home that the home was built in a workmanlike manner and is suitable for habitation. Defense attorneys dislike the implied warranty claim because it is akin to a strict liability standard. All that is required to provide the claim is that an aspect of construction is found to be defective — i.e., inconsistent with the building code or manufacturer’s installation instructions — regardless of whether the work was performed to the standard of care. The implied warranty claim is therefore easier to prove than a negligence claim, where a claimant must prove that a construction professional’s work fell below a standard of reasonable care. Additionally, it is not a defense to an implied warranty claim that the homeowners or the HOA are, themselves, partially liable for the defects where damage is due in part to insufficient or deferred maintenance, as it is for negligence claims. The only redeeming aspect to the implied warranty claim was that, until recently, it was believed that it could only be asserted by a first purchaser against the seller of an improvement, because the implied warranty arises out of the sale contract. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals opinion in Brooktree Village Homeowners Association v. Brooktree Village, LLC, 19CA1635, decided on November 19, 2020, extended the reach of the implied warranty — though just how far remains to be seen. Specifically, a division of the Court of Appeals held that an HOA can assert implied warranty claims on behalf of its members for defects in common areas, even where there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties to base the warranty upon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com

    MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues

    July 05, 2021 —
    Claims against manufacturers and distributors of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) are hurtling forward. Two important developments in this opening salvo of PFAS-related claims against numerous defendants could have important ramifications not only on future PFAS litigation, but on insurance coverage for potential PFAS liabilities as well. First, ten bellwether cases are progressing closer to trial. Second, the key “government contractor defense” has been slated for briefing. In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established a multi-district litigation (MDL 2873) for AFFF PFAS claims in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Unlike previous PFAS lawsuits (primarily against DuPont and/or 3M), the lawsuits in MDL 2873 target dozens of defendants who manufactured and distributed AFFF and its constituent chemicals. MDL 2873 now houses approximately 1,200 member cases, which include the following categories of claims: (i) claims for property damage asserted by water providers, (ii) claims for property damage asserted by property owners, (iii) bodily injury claims, and (iv) claims for medical monitoring for potential future injury. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    June 21, 2021 —
    While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com