• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction Building Consultant Jacob City Florida Subterranean parking Building Consultant Jacob City Florida industrial building Building Consultant Jacob City Florida Medical building Building Consultant Jacob City Florida high-rise construction Building Consultant Jacob City Florida production housing Building Consultant Jacob City Florida concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Jacob City Florida housing Building Consultant Jacob City Florida multi family housing Building Consultant Jacob City Florida institutional building Building Consultant Jacob City Florida tract home Building Consultant Jacob City Florida retail construction Building Consultant Jacob City Florida landscaping construction Building Consultant Jacob City Florida condominiums Building Consultant Jacob City Florida parking structure Building Consultant Jacob City Florida custom homes Building Consultant Jacob City Florida low-income housing Building Consultant Jacob City Florida casino resort Building Consultant Jacob City Florida office building Building Consultant Jacob City Florida mid-rise construction Building Consultant Jacob City Florida hospital construction Building Consultant Jacob City Florida townhome construction Building Consultant Jacob City Florida
    Jacob City Florida architectural expert witnessJacob City Florida expert witness concrete failureJacob City Florida construction project management expert witnessesJacob City Florida civil engineer expert witnessJacob City Florida construction scheduling expert witnessJacob City Florida construction expert witness public projectsJacob City Florida soil failure expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Jacob City, 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 Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Jacob City Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

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

    Jacob City Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Jacob City Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Jacob City Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Jacob City Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Jacob City Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Jacob City Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Jacob City Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Jacob City Florida

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    Construction Jobs Keep Rising, with April Gain of 33,000

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Oregon to Add 258,000 Jobs by 2022, State Data Shows

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution

    Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    Federal Judge Rips Shady Procurement Practices at DRPA

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Comparative Breach of Contract – The New Benefit of the Bargain in Construction?

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Insurer Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Under Unjust Enrichment Theory
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Jacob City, Florida Building Consultant Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Jacob City'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.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Jacob City, Florida

    Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    February 22, 2021 —
    The recent opinion from the Second District Court of Appeal in Hayward Baker, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7767859 (2nd DCA 2020) demonstrates that the significant issues test for determining the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees applies to disputes involving payment bonds under Florida’s Lien Law (Florida Statutes Chapter 713). The significant issues test is more or less a subjective test where the party that is deemed to have prevailed on the significant issues in the case is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in the case. A trial court has discretion to determine the prevailing party which will not be disturbed absent an appellate court finding the trial court abused that discretion. This significant issues test is an important consideration so that parties understand just because money ends up going their way does not necessarily mean they prevailed on the significant issues in the case. It could mean that. But it may not based on the claims and moneys involved in the dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    October 19, 2020 —
    Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    October 05, 2020 —
    In Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:
    Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at

    California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

    February 08, 2021 —
    On January 20, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (Ventura), in Plascencia v. Deese (B299142), vacated a $30 million non-economic damages award in a highway fatality case because: (1) the award did not properly apportion non-economic damages among everyone at fault in violation of Proposition 51; and (2) the amount of the award appeared to have been influenced by plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct and prejudicial remarks during closing argument. In Plascencia, the plaintiffs sued several defendants for the wrongful death of their daughter arising from a highway fatality accident. All the defendants settled or were dismissed before trial except the trucking defendants. The highway fatality was caused when one defendant driver made an illegal U-turn on a highway as she left another defendant’s fruit stand. The plaintiffs’ daughter swerved to avoid the U-turn driver, lost control of her car, and crashed into the back of the trucking defendants’ diesel tractor-trailer. The truck driver had parked the truck on the side of the highway near the fruit stand, which the trucking defendants’ expert conceded fell below the standard of care. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Peter A. Dubrawski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    December 21, 2020 —
    A general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract. In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration

    December 21, 2020 —
    This is a brief review of the recently released “Climate 21 Project” policy memo. It is the work of many former members of the Obama Administration who are deeply concerned about climate change and what steps the new administration can take in the first 100 days to confront a problem. Offering “actionable advice” rather than a policy agenda, the group recognizes that Congress must do its part by providing new statutory authorities within the early days of the new administration, and the President must be prepared to aggressively exercise the powers of his office. As the members of the Group see it, there are four interlocking crises facing the President: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) the economic devastation visited upon many people by the pandemic; (c) racial injustice; and (d) accelerating threats posed by climate change. Accordingly: 1. The Executive Office of the President must take stronger steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through domestic investment, rulemakings, policy changes, and international diplomacy. A new Special Assistant for Climate Change must be created to take charge of these climate change initiatives. There should also be established in the Executive Office of the President a National Climate Change Council. All agencies must be advised of the urgency of this problem. The paper seems to envision a substantial growth in the White Hose staff. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Is it the End of the Lease-Leaseback Shootouts? Maybe.

    September 07, 2020 —
    It’s the case that has turned into a modern day Hatfield versus McCoy – McGee v. Torrance Unified School District, Case No. 8298122, 2nd District Court of Appeals (May 29, 2020) – a series of cases challenging the validity of certain lease-leaseback construction contracts in California. In shootout number one, James McGee sued the Torrance Unified School District challenging the validity of lease-leaseback contracts the District had entered into with general contractor Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC. Under California’s lease-leaseback statute, a school district can lease property it owns to a developer, who in turns builds a school facility on the property and leases the facility back to the school district. The primary benefit of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that a school district does not need to come up with money to build the facility because the district pays for the facility over time through lease payments to the developer. In shootout number one, McGee argued that Torrance Unified School District was required to competitively bid the lease-leasebacks projects. The 2nd District Court of Appeals disagreed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    December 21, 2020 —
    In a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”: If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Korst may be contacted at