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

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500

    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/24/22) – Local Law 97, Clean Energy, and IRA Tax Credits

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Expert's Opinions On Causation Leads Way To Summary Judgment For Insurer

    William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    The Unthinkable Has Happened. How Should Contractors Respond?

    Exploring Architects’ Perspectives on AI: A Survey of Fears and Hopes

    Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number

    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

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

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    How New York City Plans to Soak Up the Rain

    Hunton Insurance Practice Again Scores “Tier 1” National Ranking in US News Best Law Firm Rankings

    Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    To Ease Housing Crunch, Theme Parks Are Becoming Homebuilders

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Wilke Fleury Attorney Featured in 2022 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over 4500 construction related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory delivers a comprehensive construction and design expert support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation, testimony, and support services to the nation's most recognized builders, risk managers, legal professionals, owners, state and local government agencies. Utilizing in house resources which include licensed architects, registered professional engineers, ASPE certified professional estimators, ICC Certified inspection and testing professionals, the organization brings national experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California construction forensic expert witnessAnaheim California structural concrete expertAnaheim California expert witness structural engineerAnaheim California soil failure expert witnessAnaheim California building code expert witnessAnaheim California construction safety expertAnaheim California construction expert witness consultant
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    February 05, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, the commercial real estate market poses a risk to financial stability, New York City moves towards net-zero building emissions, workers at several Los Angeles area hotels tentatively agree to a new contract, and more! Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    January 08, 2024 —
    Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    January 08, 2024 —
    On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy. By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    December 23, 2023 —
    Ensuring regulatory compliance of firewall constructions is getting a high-tech boost. Over the past 16 months, the construction team responsible for the iconic new Nyt Hospital Nordsjælland near Copenhagen used Imerso construction AI technology to achieve remarkable results. By using Imerso, the team enhanced work productivity while preventing costs and delays worth €5.2 million during the construction of the superstructure. Inspired by this success, the team led by Project Manager Anders Kaas has since been eager to explore the potential of the technology in other areas. The opportunity arose to address a topic that has traditionally posed significant challenges and expenses in numerous construction projects – ensuring regulatory compliance of fire barriers and firewall constructions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    January 08, 2024 —
    When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

    Vietnam Expands Arrests in Coffee Region Property Probe

    February 19, 2024 —
    Vietnam authorities detained the Communist Party chief of coffee-producing province Lam Dong as they expand an investigation into alleged bribery tied to a tourist and residential project, the public security ministry said in a website statement. Party chief Tran Duc Quan was arrested for allegedly abusing his power and position, according to the statement. Quan allegedly violated the law while giving instructions to the Dai Ninh property project in the province, causing severe consequences, it said. A Lam Dong Provincial Party Committee representative declined to provide a comment about the arrest. A representative for Quan was not available. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mai Ngoc Chau, Bloomberg

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    February 26, 2024 —
    HB24-1014 stands to eliminate the longstanding public impact requirement found within C.R.S. § 6-1-105(2) of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). While this proposed change professes the noblest intentions of “public peace, health or safety,” its effect portends a large detriment to Colorado business and an astronomical payday for Colorado plaintiffs’ attorneys. Brief History For over 100 years, Colorado recognized the need to protect its citizens from deceptive trade practices through a mechanism akin to the Federal Trade Commission Act that preceded it. In 1915, Colorado passed legislation prohibiting “untrue, deceptive, or misleading” advertising. C.L. 1921 § 6942 evolved into the broader protections afforded in the more recent consumer protection law from 1969 that prohibited “deceptive trade practices, and included protections from unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts or practices.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Brockel, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Brockel may be contacted at brockel@hhmrlaw.com

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    November 13, 2023 —
    The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com