• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Davie Florida industrial building expert witness Davie Florida townhome construction expert witness Davie Florida custom homes expert witness Davie Florida Subterranean parking expert witness Davie Florida parking structure expert witness Davie Florida structural steel construction expert witness Davie Florida institutional building expert witness Davie Florida landscaping construction expert witness Davie Florida casino resort expert witness Davie Florida hospital construction expert witness Davie Florida production housing expert witness Davie Florida retail construction expert witness Davie Florida multi family housing expert witness Davie Florida concrete tilt-up expert witness Davie Florida low-income housing expert witness Davie Florida condominiums expert witness Davie Florida custom home expert witness Davie Florida Medical building expert witness Davie Florida condominium expert witness Davie Florida housing expert witness Davie Florida tract home expert witness Davie Florida
    Davie Florida expert witness commercial buildingsDavie Florida construction claims expert witnessDavie Florida construction cost estimating expert witnessDavie Florida concrete expert witnessDavie Florida architectural engineering expert witnessDavie Florida contractor expert witnessDavie Florida delay claim expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Davie, 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 Davie 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

    Davie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Davie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Davie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Davie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Davie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Davie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Davie Florida Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Davie Florida

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    So You Want to Arbitrate? Better Make Sure Your Contract Covers All Bases

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    Subcontractors Essential to Home Building Industry

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Managing Narrative, Capturing Context, and Building Together: Talking VR and AEC with David Weir-McCall

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

    Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

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

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    California Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent Counsel

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    Florida trigger

    Application Of Two Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-For-Delay And Liquidated Damages

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Highlighted | 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Texas Considers a Quartet of Construction Bills

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

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

    New York Appellate Division Reverses Denial of Landlord’s Additional Insured Tender

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Davie, Florida Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Davie's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Davie, Florida

    New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases

    July 03, 2022 —
    Since the end of March, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued decisions in favor of the defense concerning New York Labor Law §240 and §241. These pro-defendant decisions take a narrow view of the scope of the Labor Law provisions. However, while it remains to be seen how the Court’s below will apply the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, these recent decisions are beneficial for the defense bar going forward. In Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J March 22, 2022 N.Y. LEXIS 391 | 2022 NY Slip Op 01955 | 2022 WL 837579, the Court held that 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), does not set forth a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law § 241 (6). In Toussaint Plaintiff, who was an employee of Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., brought the lawsuit against the Port Authority asserting claims under Labor Law § 200 (1) and Labor Law § 241 (6) after he was struck by a power buggy while operating a rebar-bending machine at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub construction site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Power buggies are small, self-operated vehicles used to move materials on construction sites. On the day of the accident, a trained and properly designated operator drove the buggy into the area near the plaintiff's workstation. That vehicle operator got off the vehicle, but short time thereafter, another worker—who was not designated or trained to do so—drove the buggy a short while prior to losing control and striking plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) which states that “[no person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy.” In rejecting plaintiff’s argument the Court held that the "trained and competent operator" requirement is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Matthew Feinberg, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at Mr. Feinberg may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    November 01, 2022 —
    Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Home Builders and Developers Beware: SC Supreme Court Beats Up Hybrid Arbitration Clauses Mercilessly

    November 15, 2022 —
    Today’s guest post is by one of my favorite construction lawyers and friends, Burr partner Ned Nicholson in our Columbia, SC office. Ned regularly represents clients in construction defect and compensation claims, manufacturer/dealer disputes, and insurance coverage lawsuits. He is also a South Carolina certified mediator. Ned can be reached at or (803) 799-9800. If you are a homebuilder, residential housing developer, construction industry insurer, or any one of the many participants in the industry providing affordable and decent housing for the citizens of South Carolina, you are already aware that South Carolina courts have for decades prioritized the promotion of consumer (i.e., home buyer) rights, usually at the expense of the providers of housing. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; the goal is laudable. But as in so many things, the implementation has been extremely costly for the residential construction industry as a savvy plaintiff’s bar has taken advantage of grey areas that are inevitably created in our judicial system. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Devries, Burr & Forman LLP
    Mr. Devries may be contacted at

    Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement

    December 05, 2022 —
    TEJON RANCH, Calif., Nov. 30, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tejon Ranch Co. is pleased to announce the resolution of a legal dispute involving the Tejon Ranch Conservancy and the signatories to the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement (Agreement), namely, Audubon California, Endangered Habitats League, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planning and Conservation League, and the Sierra Club. The dispute stemmed from the signatories' participation in the Antelope Valley Regional Conservation Strategy (AVRCIS), which was subsequently used by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to oppose Tejon Ranch Co.'s Centennial development. The 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement has been widely hailed as a historic conservation achievement in preserving one of California's great natural and working landscapes. Tejon Ranch Co.'s agreement to conserve 90 percent of its landholdings pursuant to the Agreement is a monumental contribution to conservation in California. Tejon Ranch Co. continues to be a leader in balancing the stewardship of the ranch as a natural treasure for California and achieving economic opportunities for its shareholders. The Company demonstrated that leadership with the actions it took to enforce the terms of the Agreement, which led to this legal dispute. As part of a settlement agreement, the Conservancy and the signatories dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit they filed. They also acknowledge that the AVRCIS does not contain the "best available scientific data" regarding Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings, and further, that they will not use, or support the use of, the AVRCIS or any other similar endeavors, to challenge Tejon Ranch Co.'s development projects and/or any Ranch uses consistent with the Agreement. In turn, Tejon Ranch Co. released from escrow 50% of the advance payments it withheld under the terms of the Agreement. The remaining funds will be released over a three-year period as matching funds to monies raised by the Conservancy as well as others who participate in Conservancy capital raising programs, after which the remaining funds with be released to the Conservancy to further its mission. These funds are the final fulfilment of Tejon Ranch Co.'s full funding obligations under the Agreement, totaling $11,760,000 over the past 14 years, again demonstrating Tejon Ranch Co.'s commitment to fulfilling the implementation of the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement. All parties are glad to put this dispute behind them and move forward in a cooperative manner to achieve the goals envisioned in the historic 2008 Agreement. About Tejon Ranch Co. Tejon Ranch Co. (NYSE: TRC) is a diversified real estate development and agribusiness company, whose principal asset is its 270,000-acre land holding located approximately 60 miles north of Los Angeles and 30 miles south of Bakersfield. More information about Tejon Ranch Co. can be found on the Company's website at Forward Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements, including without limitation statements regarding commitments of the parties under the settlement agreement and the achievement of certain goals related to Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings. These forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future results, performance, or achievements, are subject to assumptions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and important factors include, but are not limited to, the ability and willingness of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to take the actions (or refrain from taking the actions) specified in the Settlement Agreement, and the risks described in the section entitled "Risk Factors" in our annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC.

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    September 12, 2022 —
    Ethiopia has been at loggerheads with downstream neighbors Egypt and Sudan for years over a $5 billion mega-dam it’s building on the Nile River. A third phase of filling a 74 billion cubic-meter (2.6 trillion cubic-foot) reservoir behind the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam was completed in August, a process that’s reignited tensions. Egypt has described the unilateral action as a violation of international law and its foreign minister, Sameh Shoukry, wrote to the United Nations Security Council in July, reiterating its objections and accusing Ethiopia of derailing attempts to resolve the standoff. 1. Why is the dam so significant? The Nile is the most important source of fresh water in a largely arid region that is very vulnerable to drought and climate change and is experiencing rapid population growth. Egypt relies on the 4,000-mile-long river for as much as 97% of its supply, and much of eastern Sudan’s population depends on it for survival. Ethiopia is counting on a 5,150-megawatt hydropower plant on its new dam to help supply electricity to the 60% of its population that don’t have access, and sustain its manufacturing industries. The plant began generating power in 2022, some of which will be sold to neighboring countries. Reprinted courtesy of Samuel Gebre, Bloomberg and Fasika Tadesse, Bloomberg Read the full story...

    U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

    August 15, 2022 —
    Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado interpreted a faulty workmanship exclusion in a property insurance policy in The Lodge at Mountain Village Owner Association v. Eighteen Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, 22 U.S Dist. Ct LEXIS 48883*, decided on March 18, 2022. The Court held that the faulty workmanship exclusion at issue extended to preclude coverage for later ensuing damage that arose from the faulty workmanship, even though the damage was weather related, because faulty workmanship was the primary cause of the ensuing damage. The claims in The Lodge at Mountain Village arose from maintenance work performed on log siding at three multi-unit condominium buildings in Telluride. The maintenance work to the log siding included staining, finishing, and chinking repairs to joints between the logs. About a year after completion of the work, The Lodge at Mountain Village Owners Association (“The Lodge”) notified the maintenance contractor that logs were extremely weathered and that its work was defective. The Lodge retained an expert who prepared a report stating that the log finish and underlying wood was deteriorating because of the contractor’s work and that some areas were not properly protected from exposure to snow, rain, and brine from ice-melting salt. The Lodge pursued and settled its claims against the contractor. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    July 18, 2022 —
    What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Rankins may be contacted at

    Wisconsin Federal Court Addresses Scope Of Appraisal Provision In Rental Dwelling Policy

    September 05, 2022 —
    In Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 22-C-198, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117477 (E.D. Wis. July 5, 2022), the Court addressed the often disputed question of whether an appraisal provision in an insurance policy is limited to disputes over valuation or extends beyond valuation to causation and/or coverage. The underlying loss in the Higgins case involved a fire at a rental dwelling owned by the Plaintiff and insured by State Farm under a Rental Dwelling policy for, among other things, fire losses. Subsequent to being notified of the fire, State Farm investigated and provided the Plaintiff with its estimated cost of repair. Plaintiff disputed the estimate, including the repairs necessary, and also sought additional sums for debris removal and lost rent. The insurance policy at issue in Higgins included an appraisal provision which provided: “If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal.” Pursuant to this provision, Plaintiff demanded that State Farm submit to an appraisal to resolve the parties' disagreements. State Farm responded by indicating that it would enter into appraisal over the areas where there were "pricing differences" but not areas where there were "scope differences." According to State Farm, there were a number of issues regarding the scope of repairs necessary to restore the dwelling to its pre-loss condition. Plaintiff disagreed with State Farm's position and did not seek to move forward with the appraisal process on only the items State Farm identified as appropriate for appraisal. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at