• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Blountstown Florida retail construction expert witness Blountstown Florida Medical building expert witness Blountstown Florida multi family housing expert witness Blountstown Florida custom home expert witness Blountstown Florida condominium expert witness Blountstown Florida high-rise construction expert witness Blountstown Florida casino resort expert witness Blountstown Florida townhome construction expert witness Blountstown Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Blountstown Florida housing expert witness Blountstown Florida custom homes expert witness Blountstown Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Blountstown Florida low-income housing expert witness Blountstown Florida landscaping construction expert witness Blountstown Florida industrial building expert witness Blountstown Florida parking structure expert witness Blountstown Florida office building expert witness Blountstown Florida structural steel construction expert witness Blountstown Florida hospital construction expert witness Blountstown Florida institutional building expert witness Blountstown Florida condominiums expert witness Blountstown Florida
    Blountstown Florida construction claims expert witnessBlountstown Florida expert witness structural engineerBlountstown Florida OSHA expert witness constructionBlountstown Florida architect expert witnessBlountstown Florida reconstruction expert witnessBlountstown Florida consulting architect expert witnessBlountstown Florida multi family design expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Blountstown, 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Blountstown Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Columbia County Builders Association
    Local # 1007
    PO Box 7353
    Lake City, FL 32055

    Blountstown Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Blountstown Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Blountstown Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Blountstown Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Blountstown Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Blountstown Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Panama City (Fla)
    Local # 1042
    PO Box 979
    Panama City, FL 32402
    Blountstown Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Blountstown Florida

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    United States Supreme Court Limits Class Arbitration

    Skilled Labor Shortage Implications for Construction Companies

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

    Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards

    Florida Accuses Pool Contractor of Violating Laws

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

    Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    Agree to Use your “Professional Best"? You may Lose Insurance Coverage! (Law Note)

    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

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

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix
    Corporate Profile


    The Blountstown, Florida Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Blountstown's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Blountstown, Florida

    Seattle Expands Bridge Bioswale Projects

    May 11, 2020 —
    The success of engineered systems to capture stormwater runoff from Seattle’s Aurora Avenue Bridge has spurred construction of additional measures that proponents say will increase total filtering capacity by another two million gallons per year. Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    October 12, 2020 —
    On August 18, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling that Sparta Insurance Company need not cover a south Florida restaurant’s lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. But, in doing so, the appeals court appears to deviate from even its own understanding of “direct physical loss” under controlling Florida law. In the underlying coverage action, the insured, Mama Jo’s Inc. operating as Berries in the Grove, sought coverage under its “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for business income loss and incurred extra expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Reprinted courtesy of Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Andrews may be contacted at Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    May 11, 2020 —
    As discussed in a prior blog post, in Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., they commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect Statute of Repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs commenced their action prior to the time Florida’s 10-year statute of repose period ended. In overturning the lower court’s dismissal of the action, the court found that because the Right-to-Cure statute, §558 of the Florida Statutes, sets out a series of mandatory steps that must be taken prior to bringing a judicial action, filing pre-suit notice of claim sufficiently constituted an “action” for purposes of Florida’s Statute of Repose. For various reasons, the parties appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Florida. In July of 2019, before the Florida Supreme Court could decide whether to hear the case, the Florida legislature passed legislation that effectively overruled the decision. To overrule the decision, the Florida Legislature modified § 558.004 of Florida’s Right-to-Cure statute to expressly state that a notice of claim served pursuant to the Right-to-Cure statute does not toll the 10-year statute of repose period for construction claims. See Fla. Stat. § 558.004(d). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    May 18, 2020 —
    It is very common, if not nearly an industry standard, for construction contracts and subcontracts to contain provisions addressing the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials. Many of these provisions require a contractor or subcontractor to discontinue work where hazardous materials are discovered. An example of such a clause can be found in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201 (2017), Section 10.3.1, which states in part:
    If the Contractor encounters a hazardous material or substance not addressed in the Contract Documents and if reasonable precautions will be inadequate to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death to persons resulting from a material or substance, including but not limited to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), encountered on the site by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, upon recognizing the condition, immediately stop Work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect of the condition.
    A similar clause in ConsensusDocs does not require the contractor to stop work, but provides that the “Contractor shall not be obligated to commence or continue work until any Hazardous Material discovered at the Work site has been removed, rendered or determined to be harmless by the Owner as certified by an independent testing laboratory and approved by the appropriate government agency.” Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP and Miranda R. Millerick, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at Ms. Millerick may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    June 08, 2020 —
    I have discussed the impactful legislation to the Virginia construction industry in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings. One of those statutes that will take effect on July 1, 2020 will fundamentally change the relationships between general contractors and their subcontractors and suppliers. Senate Bill 838 does the following on construction projects with a value of $500,000 or greater that are not single family residential construction projects:
    • Makes the general contractor, and all tiers of subcontractors on a particular project contractually liable to pay their subcontractors’ (at any tier) employees wages.
    • Requires that the payments are equal or exceed those required by other statutes.
    • Deems contractors to be the employers of their subcontractors’ employees for purposes of Va. Code Section 40.1-29 that imposes criminal and civil penalties for failure to pay wages when due, and
    • Grants employees a private right of action for any violations, including the right to a class or joint action, award of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and possible treble damages for “knowing” violations by the contractor.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    September 07, 2020 —
    The Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.) In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies. Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.” A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot. The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy. The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG. Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status. Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy. In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy. Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered. Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
    Ms. Ward may be contacted at

    My Top 5 Innovations for Greater Efficiency, Sustainability & Quality

    October 25, 2020 —
    As a construction professional and British citizen, I genuinely could not have been any prouder and humbled to have opened UK Construction Week Virtual last week. 2020 is the year of disruptions, and we are all looking for this “New Normal”, and while this newfound regularity may have opened new opportunities, as we are now broadcasting to a much wider audience than previous in-person events, and indeed we have to thank technology for that. For us construction professionals, this pandemic has put our industry further under pressure, however, it has also taught us something extremely important. The pandemic has shown the world how vital the construction industry is. The world cannot function without it. This new extraordinary experience has given us the prospect to turn our industry around and transform it into one of the most productive industries in our society. How are we going to do it? I think you can guess what I am about to say, of course by leveraging technology! The panel discussion with leading construction experts across the UK with representatives from Skanska UK, Bryden Wood, and Innovate UK, focused on our top 5 innovations for greater efficiency, sustainability and quality in construction. Here are my top 5. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cristina Savian, AEC Business

    Insurance Lawyers Recognized by JD Supra 2020 Readers' Choice Awards

    June 29, 2020 —
    Congratulations to Anthony Miscioscia, partner and Co-Chair of the Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Group, and associate Timothy Carroll who have been recognized as top authors in Insurance in the 2020 JD Supra Readers' Choice Awards. The Readers’ Choice Awards recognize top authors and firms for their thought leadership in key topics read by C-suite executives, in-house counsel, media, and other professionals across the JD Supra platform during 2019. Additionally, JD Supra recognized Subrogation counsel, Gus Sara’s alert "New Hampshire's Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers" as one of the most popular product liability articles in 2019. The Readers’ Choice Awards reflect a deep dive into JD Supra 2019 reader data, in which they studied total visibility and engagement among readers across many industries interested in certain defining topics. Along with a top firm in each category, JD Supra also features additional reader data, including the top five most-read articles, popular related topics, total number of authors, and other category-specific information. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Timothy Carroll, Anthony Miscioscia and Gus Sara Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Mr. Sara may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of