BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Paxton Florida condominiums expert witness Paxton Florida multi family housing expert witness Paxton Florida townhome construction expert witness Paxton Florida industrial building expert witness Paxton Florida housing expert witness Paxton Florida tract home expert witness Paxton Florida office building expert witness Paxton Florida custom home expert witness Paxton Florida institutional building expert witness Paxton Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Paxton Florida retail construction expert witness Paxton Florida high-rise construction expert witness Paxton Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Paxton Florida landscaping construction expert witness Paxton Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Paxton Florida Medical building expert witness Paxton Florida hospital construction expert witness Paxton Florida structural steel construction expert witness Paxton Florida custom homes expert witness Paxton Florida low-income housing expert witness Paxton Florida parking structure expert witness Paxton Florida
    Paxton Florida building code expert witnessPaxton Florida engineering expert witnessPaxton Florida building envelope expert witnessPaxton Florida construction safety expertPaxton Florida expert witness commercial buildingsPaxton Florida consulting architect expert witnessPaxton Florida architectural engineering expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Paxton, 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 Paxton Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tri-County Home Builders
    Local # 1073
    PO Box 420
    Marianna, FL 32447

    Paxton Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Paxton Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Paxton Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Paxton Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Paxton Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Paxton Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Paxton Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Paxton Florida


    Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    43% of U.S. Homes in High Natural Disaster Risk Areas

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    At $350 Million, Beverly Hillbillies Mansion Is Most Expensive in U.S.

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    TOLLING AGREEMENTS: Construction Defect Lawyers use them to preserve Association Warranty Claims during Construction Defect Negotiations with Developers

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    Zombie Foreclosures Plaguing Various Cities in the U.S.

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

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

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative
    Corporate Profile

    PAXTON FLORIDA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Paxton, 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Paxton'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
    Paxton, Florida

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    August 10, 2020 —
    We’ve all heard the expression that those who deal with the government must turn square corners. This is because the government has a broad array of tools at its disposal to motivate, coax and cajole contractors and federal grant recipients to play by the rules. Those tools include harsh measures such as criminal prosecution and civil false claims act enforcement on the one hand and poor CPARS ratings on the other. A seemingly less severe administrative option available to the government is suspension and debarment. However, any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive. While the numbers of suspensions and debarments have declined from the all-time high in 2011, there is still significant activity. In its FY 2018 report, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee reported 2444 referrals, 480 suspensions, 1542 proposed debarments and 1334 debarments. The number of referrals for suspension and debarment in FY 2018 is almost exactly the same as the number of GAO bid protests filed that year. WHAT IS SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT? Suspension and debarment are the government’s tools to avoid entities it views as a high risk for poor performance, fraud, waste and abuse. Suspension and debarment preclude a business entity or individual from contracting with the government or from receiving grants, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of assistance from the government. A suspension is a temporary exclusion when the government determines immediate action is necessary pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. A debarment is an exclusion for a defined, reasonable period of time—often three years. Reprinted courtesy of Hal J. Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Perloff may be contacted at hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com

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

    April 27, 2020 —
    In responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause. The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard and Leah B. Nommensen Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at leahnommensen@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    June 08, 2020 —
    Boston, Mass. (June 5, 2020) - Boston Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Associate Oliver J. Vega recently obtained a complete defense verdict after a 10-day bench trial in the U.S District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff in this matter, who is the owner of a newly acquired food processing facility, alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against our client, a Massachusetts engineering firm, arising out of allegedly defective design and construction management services provided during the renovation of and addition to said facility. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois and Oliver Vega, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Vega may be contacted at Oliver.Vega@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    June 08, 2020 —
    Under the Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 7101 en seq.), when a contractor submits a claim to the government in excess of $100,000, the claim MUST contain a certification of good faith, as follows: For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that– (A) the claim is made in good faith; (B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief; (C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and (D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). See also 48 C.F.R. s. 33.207(c) as to the wording of the certification. The contracting officer is not required to render a final decision on the claim within 60 days if, during this time period, he/she notifies the contractor of the reasons why the certification is defective. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(3). Importantly, the contracting officer’s failure to render a decision within 60 days is deemed an appealable denial. 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

    Earth Movement Exclusion Precludes Coverage

    July 20, 2020 —
    The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, found the earth movement exclusion barred coverage for the contractor when a landslide damaged the property. North River Ins. Co. v. H.K. Constr. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90110 (D. Haw. May 22, 2020). Bruce and Yulin Bingle sued HK for damage caused to the Bingle property. HK was hired as the contractor for the construction of a new residence and improvements on their property in Kaneohe. HK excavated near the boundary of the neighbors' and the Bingle's property in order to cut the existing slope to build a retaining wall. Due to the excavation work, the slope on the Bingle property failed and soil eroded away. At the time, the Bingles were selling their property. Due to the landslide, the buyer decided not to buy the property. The Department of Planning and Permitting issued a Notice of Violation for failure to obtain a grading permit. HK notified its carrier, North River. North River agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, but then filed suit against HK for a declaratory judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    White and Williams Announces Lawyer Promotions

    May 25, 2020 —
    White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Vincent Barbera and James Burger to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Victoria Fuller, Phyllis Ingram, William Johnston, Eric Porter, Gus Sara, Jenifer Scarcella, Lian Skaf and Brett Tishler from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including education, finance, financial lines, insurance coverage, labor and employment, litigation, real estate, and subrogation. These accomplished lawyers have earned this advancement based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are pleased to elect these two lawyers to the partnership and promote eight exceptional associates to counsel. The group demonstrates the legal talent and breadth of services White and Williams offers clients,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The contributions of these lawyers have enhanced the growth and reputation of our firm and reflect our deep commitment to clients. We look forward to their continued success.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    August 31, 2020 —
    Before the Kardashians, before Empire, before Crazy Rich Asians there was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous with Robin Leach. The next case, Moore v. Teed, Case No. A153523 (April 24, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeals, is about the unfulfilled wishes and dashed dreams of the $13 million dollar “fixer upper.” Moore v. Teed The $13 Million Dollar “Fixer Upper” Justin Moore just wanted to buy a house in San Francisco. But he couldn’t afford one in the neighborhoods he preferred. But in 2011, luck struck, when Moore met Richard Teed, a real estate agent with “over 25 years of experience as a building contractor,” “an extensive background in historic restorations” and a “deep understanding of quality construction.” Teed told Moore that he could locate a “lower-priced fixer-upper in a choice neighborhood and then renovate it.” Moore was sold. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    August 31, 2020 —
    In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. 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