BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Oldsmar Florida office building building expert Oldsmar Florida concrete tilt-up building expert Oldsmar Florida structural steel construction building expert Oldsmar Florida hospital construction building expert Oldsmar Florida Subterranean parking building expert Oldsmar Florida custom home building expert Oldsmar Florida condominiums building expert Oldsmar Florida high-rise construction building expert Oldsmar Florida housing building expert Oldsmar Florida tract home building expert Oldsmar Florida low-income housing building expert Oldsmar Florida production housing building expert Oldsmar Florida industrial building building expert Oldsmar Florida mid-rise construction building expert Oldsmar Florida landscaping construction building expert Oldsmar Florida casino resort building expert Oldsmar Florida multi family housing building expert Oldsmar Florida parking structure building expert Oldsmar Florida townhome construction building expert Oldsmar Florida custom homes building expert Oldsmar Florida condominium building expert Oldsmar Florida
    Oldsmar Florida hospital construction expert witnessOldsmar Florida OSHA expert witness constructionOldsmar Florida slope failure expert witnessOldsmar Florida construction expert witness consultantOldsmar Florida construction defect expert witnessOldsmar Florida building expertOldsmar Florida construction experts
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Oldsmar, 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.


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Oldsmar Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Polk County Builders Association
    Local # 1028
    2232 Heritage Dr
    Lakeland, FL 33801

    Oldsmar Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders & CA of Brevard
    Local # 1012
    1500 W Eau Gallie Blvd Ste A
    Melbourne, FL 32935

    Oldsmar Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Highlands County Builders Association
    Local # 1022
    PO Box 7546
    Sebring, FL 33872
    Oldsmar Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Manatee - Sarasota County
    Local # 1041
    8131 Lakewood Main St Ste 207
    Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202

    Oldsmar Florida Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Oldsmar Florida


    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    Mexico’s Construction Industry Posts First Expansion Since 2012

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    New Households Moving to Apartments

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Get Construction Defects in Writing

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    David A. Frenznick Awarded Multiple Accolades in the 2020 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    Contractors Struggle with Cash & Difficult Payment Terms, Could Benefit From Legal Advice, According to New Survey

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales
    Corporate Profile

    OLDSMAR FLORIDA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Oldsmar, Florida Building Expert 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Oldsmar'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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Oldsmar, Florida

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    November 10, 2016 —
    A costly battle over development in Beverly Hills, California, ended with voters rejecting a hotel owner’s proposal to combine two planned condominium towers into a single building that would have loomed over the wealthy Southern California enclave. With 44 percent in support and 56 percent against, Beverly Hills voters turned down plans by Beny Alagem, who owns the Beverly Hilton and is building an adjacent 170-room Waldorf Astoria, to develop a single 26-story tower next to the hotels, instead of eight- and 18-story buildings that were approved by the city council and a voter referendum in 2008. Alagem’s plan sets aside the remaining 1.7 acres (0.7 hectares) for a public park and gardens. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    September 04, 2019 —
    Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law. Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C). To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    October 07, 2016 —
    Owners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home. ENTER THE UTPCPL On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    October 10, 2013 —
    The Colorado Pool case has been featured in two past blog entries, including: “An Arapahoe County District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retrospectively,” which discussed the case at the trial court level, and “Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy,” which discussed the case at the Court of Appeals level. In both instances, the courts held that retroactively applying C.R.S. C.R.S. § 13-20-808 to policies in effect prior to the date of the statute’s enactment would be impermissibly retrospective because it would change the coverage under the policy for which the parties had originally bargained. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
    David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    April 08, 2014 —
    In Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss. In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim. The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

    April 01, 2015 —
    Responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court determined that BP was not an additional insured under Transocean's liability policy and had no coverage under the policy for the deaths caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. In re Horizon, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). We have previously posted on this case in the federal courts here and here. Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit operating in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to a contract with BP. After an explosion in April 2010, the rig caught fire, killing eleven crew members. Both Transocean and BP sought coverage under Transocean's primary and excess policies. Although they did not dispute that BP was an additional insured, Transocean and its insurers argued that BP was not entitled to coverage for pollution-related liabilities arising from subsurface oil releases in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    February 12, 2013 —
    The federal government has expressed a commitment to environmentally sound, or “green” building practices, but now the question becomes who decides what constitutes a green building. The U.S. General Services Administration has started a public comment period on what certification program the GSA should recommend. Currently, the GSA uses the LEED standard from the U.S. Green Building Council. Although there are three green building standards, LEED, Green Globes, and the Living Building Challenge, only the first two are being seriously considered, according to a report on TriplePundit.com. The Green Globes program from the Green Building Initiative has its detractors, as some feel that the program fails to be sufficiently environmentally sound. Green Globes was created by a former lumber industry executive, Ward Hubbell, and is more permissive about woods and plastics used in construction. Hubbell defends the program, saying that the certification program is both rigorous and transparent. The U.S. Green Building Council also has its critics, and allegation have been made that LEED costs about twice as much as Green Globes in order to enrich the executives at the U.S. Green Building Council. Further, some claim that LEED certification involves lengthy delays. One architect criticized LEED, indicating that if he has questions he would “have to wait a month for a response.” The U.S. Department of Energy seems to be favoring Green Globes, as their review found it a better choice for meeting government requirements for new buildings. Conversely, the agency preferred LEED for modifying existing buildings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    June 01, 2011 —

    Served with a lawsuit that you turned over to your insurer? Insurer refusing to defend you? Well, find some hope in this news. Washington’s IFCA has the claws to ensure that insurers perform their duties.

    Contractors heavily rely on the defense provisions of their Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies. In construction, a legal dispute can easily rear its head when you least expect it. Luckily, Washington registered contractors are required to maintain CGL insurance. That insurance often provides contractors with adequate legal defense in the event that they are sued.

    But, what if your insurer turns down the defense request? They might be staring at massive damages. A current Reiser Legal client, Australia Unlimited, Inc., recently won a large verdict against Hartford Insurance, after the insurer unreasonably denied their claim. The firm who represented Australia Unlimited Inc. in that case, Hackett Beecher and Hart, were successful in procuring a $5.43 Million verdict

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of