BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building expert witness Satellite Beach Florida hospital construction expert witness Satellite Beach Florida production housing expert witness Satellite Beach Florida housing expert witness Satellite Beach Florida townhome construction expert witness Satellite Beach Florida landscaping construction expert witness Satellite Beach Florida multi family housing expert witness Satellite Beach Florida custom homes expert witness Satellite Beach Florida parking structure expert witness Satellite Beach Florida condominiums expert witness Satellite Beach Florida office building expert witness Satellite Beach Florida condominium expert witness Satellite Beach Florida structural steel construction expert witness Satellite Beach Florida high-rise construction expert witness Satellite Beach Florida casino resort expert witness Satellite Beach Florida industrial building expert witness Satellite Beach Florida tract home expert witness Satellite Beach Florida Medical building expert witness Satellite Beach Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Satellite Beach Florida custom home expert witness Satellite Beach Florida mid-rise construction expert witness Satellite Beach Florida retail construction expert witness Satellite Beach Florida
    Satellite Beach Florida defective construction expertSatellite Beach Florida hospital construction expert witnessSatellite Beach Florida building envelope expert witnessSatellite Beach Florida structural engineering expert witnessesSatellite Beach Florida structural concrete expertSatellite Beach Florida construction defect expert witnessSatellite Beach Florida expert witness concrete failure
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Satellite Beach, 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 Satellite Beach Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders & CA of Brevard
    Local # 1012
    1500 W Eau Gallie Blvd Ste A
    Melbourne, FL 32935

    Satellite Beach Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Polk County Builders Association
    Local # 1028
    2232 Heritage Dr
    Lakeland, FL 33801

    Satellite Beach Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Tampa Bay Builders Association
    Local # 1036
    11242 Winthrop Main St
    Riverview, FL 33578

    Satellite Beach Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Hernando Bldrs Assoc
    Local # 1010
    7391 Sunshine Grove Rd
    Brooksville, FL 34613

    Satellite Beach Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Metro Orlando
    Local # 1040
    544 Mayo Ave
    Maitland, FL 32751

    Satellite Beach Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Lake County
    Local # 1026
    1100 N Joanna Ave
    Tavares, FL 32778

    Satellite Beach Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Citrus Cty Bldr Assn
    Local # 1006
    1196 S Lecanto Hwy
    Lecanto, FL 34461

    Satellite Beach Florida Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Satellite Beach Florida


    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

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

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    Union Handbilling: When, Where, and Why it is Legal

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    Sold Signs Fill Builder Lots as U.S. Confidence Rises: Economy

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

    Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Communications between Counsel and PR Firm Hired by Counsel Held Discoverable

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    ‘Like a War Zone’: Malibu Fire Ravages Multimillion-Dollar Homes

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

    Considering Stormwater Management

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation
    Corporate Profile

    SATELLITE BEACH FLORIDA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Satellite Beach, Florida Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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 Satellite Beach'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
    Satellite Beach, Florida

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    August 20, 2019 —
    On May 28, 2019, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examined the phrase “based on” in an assault-and-battery exclusion, finding that the phrase means “to make, form, or serve as the foundation of any claim, demand or suit.” C.M.S. Investment Ventures, Inc. v. American European Insurance Company, No. A-2056-17T3, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1215, at *8-9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2019) (CMS). The CMS case is also notable because the Appellate Division held that a 20-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable and therefore warranted estoppel. In CMS, the insured was allegedly warned by its tenant about a faulty ground-floor window that failed to lock properly. Afterward, an intruder broke into the tenant’s apartment and sexually assaulted the tenant, who sued the insured on a premises liability claim. Before she filed suit, the tenant sought payment from the insured’s CGL insurer directly. The insurer denied coverage based on the assault-and-battery exclusion and closed the file, but never informed the insured. Later, the tenant sued the insured, which sought a defense and indemnity from its insurer, which again denied coverage based on the exclusion. The insured then sought a declaration of coverage on grounds that the exclusion was ambiguous, and the insurer “was estopped from denying coverage, because it waited [20] months to inform CMS of its coverage decision.” The trial court ruled in the insured’s favor which led to the appeal in CMS. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    January 13, 2020 —
    Syed Ahmad, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage practice, has volunteered to serve as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee. The Minority Trial Lawyer Committee (MTL) serves as a resource for minority litigators, in-house counsel and law students, aiming to foster professional development, legal scholarship, advocacy and community involvement. As Chair of the Programming Subcommittee, Syed, who was named to Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List earlier this year, will help advance MTL’s mission of facilitating discussions about diversity and the law and providing career network opportunities for minority trial lawyers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com

    MTA Debarment Update

    December 02, 2019 —
    Alliance for Fair and Equitable Contracting Today, Inc., a nonprofit formed by five trade associations, including the GCA, the BTEA and the NY Building Congress, has sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority over rules that debar contractors for delays and cost overruns on MTA projects without regard to the reasons for the delays and cost overruns. As described in our prior client alert (see here), the current rules automatically debar firms that are determined to have gone over the MTA approved contract price or time by more than 10%. The rules do not consider mitigating circumstances. Delays and cost overruns are often caused by unforeseen conditions, design errors and omissions, and changes requested by the MTA. The MTA’s rules could lead contractors to absorb additional costs they shouldn’t be responsible for rather than face the risk of being debarred. As argued in Alliance’s action, “Debarment is the death penalty for a public works contractor, and not just in New York. A debarment by the MTA could result in debarment nationwide, given that public and private contractors throughout the country commonly inquire about bidders’ debarment history when considering project bids. The Debarment Statute and MTA Regulations thus effectively export an unreasonable law not only throughout New York State, but to all other states as well.” Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Few Green Building Notes

    December 02, 2019 —
    This past week, the blogosphere (if that’s even the word these days) has been abuzz about green building and the value that green can add to a project. Three items in particular (among many) got my attention. The first of these was the fact that a new private sustainability rating system is ready for launch. The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (or ISI) is seeking public comment on its proposed envISIon. This new system (aptly dubbed Version 1.0) will go “live” in July for comment. Why mention this new system? First of all, ISI’s founding members are the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Public Works Association (APWA) and the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). This trio gives the new program some fairly heavy weight backing. Second, while there are rating systems aside from the ever present LEED, none have taken hold in any real way to compete with LEED. I am curious to see if the envISIon system has any better luck. Finally, this shows that sustainable building is of interest to more than the USGBC and those of us that discuss LEED on a daily basis. I find this to be a great thing that could lead to more societal acceptance of sustainable practices as a standard practice rather than a goal. Hopefully such efforts will offset the other two notes that caught my eye recently. The first of these is the foreclosure of the Chapel Hill, North Carolina Greenbridge project. This project is well documented at my friend Doug Reiser’s (@douglasreiser) Builders Counsel blog so I won’t further discuss the details here. However, the question that Doug asks is a good one, i. e. were the “green” elements of the project to blame? 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

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    December 22, 2019 —
    The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    September 16, 2019 —
    As usual, the last month of the Supreme Court’s term generated significant rulings on all manner of cases, possibly presaging the new directions the Court will be taking in administrative and regulatory law. Here’s a brief roundup: An Offshore Dispute, Resolve – Parker Drilling Management v. Newton On June 10, 2019, the Court held, in a unanimous ruling, that, under federal law, California wage and hour laws do not apply to offshore operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Newton, the plaintiff, worked on drilling platforms off the coast of California, and alleged that he was not paid for his “standby time” which is contrary to California law if not federal law. He filed a class action in state court, which was removed to federal court, where it was dismissed on the basis of a 1969 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that state law applies on the OCS only to the extent that it is necessary to use state law to fill a significant gap or void in federal law, and this is not the case here. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that court disagreed with the Fifth Circuit, and ruled that state law is applicable on the OCS whenever it applies to the matter at hand. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Thomas, conceded that “this is a close question of statutory interpretation,” but in the end the Court agreed with the argument that if there was not a gap to fill, that ended the dispute over which law applies on the Outer continental Shelf. This ruling, recognizing the preeminent role that federal law plays on the OCS, may affect the resolution of other offshore disputes affecting other federal statutes. Preemption Prevention – Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren. et al. On June 17, 2019 the Court decided important cases involving federal preemption and First Amendment issues. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a Virginia law that “flatly prohibits uranium mining in Virginia”—or more precisely—mining on non-federal land in Virginia. Virginia Uranium planned to mine raw uranium from a site near Coles, Virginia, but acknowledging that Virginia law forbade such an operation, challenged the state law on federal preemption grounds, arguing that the Atomic Energy Act, as implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, preempts the ability of the state to regulate this activity. However, the majority, in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, notes that the “best reading of the AEA does not require us to hold the state law before us preempted,” and that the1983 precedent that Virginia Uranium cites, Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, can easily be distinguished. Justice Gorsuch rejected arguments that the intent of the Virginia legislators in passing the state law should be consulted, that the Court’s ruling should normally be governed by the exact text of the statute at hand. However, both the concurring and dissenting opinions suggest that the what the legislators intended to do is important in a preemption context. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    December 16, 2019 —
    In Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container. In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four years later to discover water damage to the contents. They sued the storage company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract; tortious breach of covenant; negligence; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750. The storage company’s insurer intervened and moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The appeals court affirmed. The storage company’s contract contained a release of liability stating that personal property was stored “at the customer’s sole risk” and the owners “shall not be liable for any damage or loss,” including water damage. Further, the contract stated that the containers were not waterproof, and again that the storage company was not liable for water damage. The contract attached an addendum further stating that the owner was “a landlord renting space, is not a warehouseman, and does not take custody of my property.” The addendum went on with an acknowledgement that the owner: “2. Is not responsible for loss or damage to my property; 3. Does not provide insurance on my property for me; and 4. Requires that I provide my own insurance coverage or be ‘Self-Insured’ (personally assume risk of loss or damage).” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    September 09, 2019 —
    Mediation Mediation is a process in which a neutral person or persons facilitate communication between the disputants to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement agreement. During this process, a neutral third party, with no decision-making power, intervenes in the dispute to help the litigants voluntarily reach their own agreement. Through a series of discussions, statements and private caucuses between the parties and the mediator, the process lets both parties negotiate and agree to a resolution with which everyone can abide. It is an excellent method of bringing a dispute to a conclusion without the further uncertainty and expense of litigation. Arbitration Arbitration, in addition to mediation, is one of the most common methods of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”), whereby the parties bring a dispute before a disinterested third party who is typically selected by both parties. An arbitrator hears evidence presented by the parties, makes legal rulings, determines facts and makes an arbitration award. Arbitration awards may be entered as judgments in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, where there is no agreement, in accordance with California statutes. Arbitrations can be binding or non-binding, as agreed by the parties in writing. In most cases, the arbitrator’s decision is binding and final. When is it Appropriate to Engage in Mediation and/or Arbitration? Mediation can be held at any time, before or during a lawsuit. It is a voluntary process, where both sides simply agree to go to mediation in an effort to get the case settled. Sometimes, it is a contractually required process for the parties to complete prior to going to litigation or arbitration. Typically, in this situation, if a party ignores this requirement and fails to participate in a contractually mandated mediation, they will lose their rights to recover attorneys’ fees and costs – even if they ultimately prevail. Other times, mediation is strongly encouraged by the judge if a lawsuit has already been filed, and some would even say, ordered by the court (though it is typically not called “mediation” but something very similar like a “Dispute Resolution Conference” or “Mandatory Settlement Conference”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brittany Rupley Haefele, Porter Law Group
    Ms. Haefele may be contacted at bhaefele@porterlaw.com