BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert San Diego California Medical building building expert San Diego California concrete tilt-up building expert San Diego California townhome construction building expert San Diego California tract home building expert San Diego California condominiums building expert San Diego California custom home building expert San Diego California landscaping construction building expert San Diego California low-income housing building expert San Diego California casino resort building expert San Diego California hospital construction building expert San Diego California production housing building expert San Diego California industrial building building expert San Diego California mid-rise construction building expert San Diego California office building building expert San Diego California parking structure building expert San Diego California condominium building expert San Diego California custom homes building expert San Diego California housing building expert San Diego California high-rise construction building expert San Diego California structural steel construction building expert San Diego California Subterranean parking building expert San Diego California
    San Diego California construction project management expert witnessSan Diego California building code compliance expert witnessSan Diego California consulting architect expert witnessSan Diego California roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSan Diego California structural engineering expert witnessesSan Diego California building consultant expertSan Diego California OSHA expert witness construction
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    San Diego, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines San Diego California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association of San Diego
    Local # 0556
    9201 Spectrum Center Blvd Ste 110
    San Diego, CA 92123

    San Diego California Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614

    San Diego California Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614

    San Diego California Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211

    San Diego California Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501
    San Diego California Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

    San Diego California Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355
    San Diego California Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For San Diego California


    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    Policyholders' Coverage Checklist in Times of Coronavirus

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

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

    FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2021 “Atlanta 500” List

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

    Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

    EPA Threatens Cut in California's Federal Highway Funds

    Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

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

    Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

    No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

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

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation
    Corporate Profile

    SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The San Diego, California Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    San Diego, California

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    August 13, 2014 —
    Big Builder recaps production homes by decade, beginning with Sears Catalog Homes of the 1920s. They cover major events, original prices, intended buyers, geographic areas, designer/developers, styles/floor plans, and how they broke ground. Big Builder chose to highlight Greenbelt Row Houses for the 1930s, Levittown Tract Homes for the 1940s, as well as additional home builders for each decade through 2010. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    December 09, 2011 —

    Applying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit found a duty to defend construction defect claims where the faulty workmanship was unintentional. Greystone Const. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22053 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). A prior post [here] discussed the Tenth Circuit’s certified question to the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter, a request that was rejected by the Colorado court.

    In two underlying cases, Greystone was sued by the homeowner for damage caused to the foundation by soil expansion. In both cases, the actual construction was performed by subcontractors. Further, in neither case was the damage intended or anticipated. Nevertheless, National Union refused to defend, contending property damage resulting from faulty construction was not an occurrence.

    Relying on a Colorado Court of Appeals case, General Security Indemn. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), the district court granted summary judgment to National Union.

    On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether Colorado legislation enacted to overturn General Security could be applied retroactively. The statute, section 13-20-808, provided courts "shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured."

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    January 06, 2012 —

    Relying on the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the court determined coverage potentially existed for damage caused by water. Union Sav. Bank v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134398 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2011).

    The Tods purchased property that was mortgaged by Union Savings. The Tods obtained a Landlords Policy for the property from Allstate. When the Tods were in default on their loan, Union Savings notified them that foreclosure proceedings would commence. Union Savings sent an appraiser to the property who discovered water in the basement. Water and electricity to the building were off. Union Savings notified Allstate and later filed a formal claim under the mortgagee clause in the Landlords Policy. This clause stated, "A covered loss will be payable to the mortgagees named on the policy declaration. . . ."

    Allstate denied coverage, citing exclusions for water damage.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update

    June 15, 2020 —
    A California Court of Appeals opinion published earlier this month brings a change to payment bond claims brought by unpaid subcontractors and suppliers. The decision (Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America) places limitations on a payment bond surety’s ability to rely on subcontract “pay-when-paid” language, stating that a payment provision typically found in subcontracts is contrary to the “reasonable time” statutory requirement and will not be enforced. This represents a major shift in California construction payment bond claim rights. Plaintiff Crosno Construction, Inc. (“Crosno) was a subcontractor to general contractor Clark Brothers (“Clark”), who was principal on a public works payment bond issued by Travelers. The owner was a public agency district (“District.”) Crosno had completed most of its subcontract work when a dispute between District and Clark arose, causing the project to stop. Crosno then sought payment through a payment bond claim against Travelers. Travelers denied the claim, relying on the subcontract’s payment provisions and asserting the defense that it had no obligation to pay on the bond claim because the litigation between Clark and the District had not yet reached its conclusion. Subcontract. The subcontract between Clark and Crosno contained a “pay-when-paid” provision stating that Clark would pay Crosno within a reasonable time after receiving payment from the District. In defining “a reasonable time,” the subcontract language provided that the time for payment “in no event shall be less than the time [Clark] and [Crosno] require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against [District] or other responsible party to obtain payment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

    Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

    September 05, 2022 —
    $250,000. $1.5 million. $12 million. These are the litigation damage estimates that plaintiffs sought to recover against design professionals who failed to familiarize themselves with local site conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Brad Shefrin, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    April 11, 2018 —
    Interpreting Hawaii law, the federal district court held that the standard for triggering the duty to defend is the same as the standard for the duty to advance costs under a D&O policy. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56949 (D. Haw. April 3, 2018). The underlying plaintiffs sued 22 defendants, including Maui Land Pineapple (MLP) and Ryan L. Churchill, concerning a residential development project known as The Ritz-Carlton Club & Residences. The underlying complaint alleged that MLP "directly or indirectly through wholly owned subsidiaries exerts control" over Kapalua Bay, LLC, the defendant in the underlying lawsuit. Kapalua Bay, LLC was created as a joint venture of which MLP held 51%. Churchill was a senior executive officer of MLP, President of Kapalua Bay, and an executive officer of Kapalua Realty, which participated in all aspects of the Project, such as financing, development, and construction. In their second amended complaint, the underlying plaintiffs alleged nine Counts against the defendants, including breach of fiduciary duty. It was alleged that defendants were not transparent and kept owners in the dark regarding the status of the project. Several allegations named Churchill individually and described his alleged material misrepresentations to the underlying plaintiffs regarding the project's financing. 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

    The Uncertain Future of the IECC

    January 11, 2021 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday, I welcome an old friend and past Guest Post Friday contributor, Mike Collignon. Mike is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Green Builder® Coalition. He engages in national and state-level advocacy and publishes regular content for Green Builder® Media. Mike is also the Chair of the WERS Development Group and has served as the moderator or host for Green Builder® Media’s Impact Series webinars from 2012–present. The following is an op-ed based on the author’s attendance at public meetings and conversations with inside sources. “I think that you will all agree that we are living in most interesting times.” – Joseph Chamberlain, 1898 2020 was a historic year, both for reasons we currently comprehend and for reasons we may only understand in retrospect. Depending on how an upcoming ICC Board decision goes, it may prove to be the year the IECC met its demise. 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

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    October 01, 2014 —
    The Wall Street Journal reported that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently “took the unprecedented step of formally proposing to take over construction workplace safety in Arizona because it said the state doesn't require proper fall protection.” OSHA’s deputy director, Jordan Barab, told the Wall Street Journal, “We told them we did not think their standard…was at least as effective as ours.” However, “[a] spokeswoman for Arizona's state workplace enforcement agency countered that the state's requirements are adequate, adding that it will respond to the federal notice ‘as appropriate.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of