• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida low-income housing Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida casino resort Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida retail construction Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida parking structure Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida office building Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida townhome construction Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida hospital construction Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida condominiums Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida production housing Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida Medical building Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida landscaping construction Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida Subterranean parking Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida institutional building Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida custom home Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida tract home Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida multi family housing Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida custom homes Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida condominium Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida high-rise construction Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida housing Building Consultant Melbourne Village Florida
    Melbourne Village Florida building code expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida slope failure expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida stucco expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida expert witnesses fenestrationMelbourne Village Florida testifying construction expert witnessMelbourne Village Florida construction project management expert witnessesMelbourne Village Florida building code compliance expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Melbourne Village, 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 Melbourne Village 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

    Melbourne Village Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Melbourne Village Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Melbourne Village Florida

    Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

    Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    Make Prudent Decisions regarding your Hurricane Irma Property Damage Claims

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    The ARC and The Covenants

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says

    Timely Legal Trends and Developments for Construction

    6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    West Coast Casualty Promises Exciting Line Up at the Nineteenth Annual Conference

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    Making the World’s Longest Undersea Railway Tunnel Possible with BIM

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

    Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December
    Corporate Profile


    The Melbourne Village, Florida Building Consultant Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of 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 Consultant News & Info
    Melbourne Village, Florida

    Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify Not Ripe Until Underlying Lawsuit Against Insured Resolved

    February 03, 2020 —
    A liability insurer has two duties: 1) the duty to defend its insured; and 2) the duty to indemnify its insured. With respect to the second duty – the duty to indemnify – this duty is typically “not ripe for adjudication unless and until the insured or putative insured has been held liable in the underlying action.” Hartford Fire Ins Co. v. Beazer Homes, LLC, 2019 WL 5596237, *2 (M.D.Fla. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). For instance, Beazer Homes involved an insurance coverage dispute stemming from construction defects. An owner sued its general contractor for construction defects relating to stucco problems. The general contractor paid for the repairs. The general contractor then sued its stucco subcontractor to recover the costs it incurred. The subcontractor tendered the defense of the lawsuit to its commercial general liability insurer which is defending its insured-subcontractor under the commonly issued reservation of rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    October 07, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
    At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
    This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    January 13, 2020 —
    News that House Democrats and the Trump administration have come to an agreement on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) provided a bit of calm in the storm over trade policies that have roiled the construction market since 2017. Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

    September 16, 2019 —
    On the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    February 03, 2020 —
    The International Code Council (ICC) has approved 17 changes to the 2021 editions of the International Building Code (IBC) and International Fire Code, allowing for mass timber buildings up to 18 stories. With the addition of three new mass timber construction types (Type IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C), this is the first time in the history of the modern building code that significantly new construction types have been added to the code. Building Materials The primary building material that makes tall mass timber (TMT) buildings possible is cross-laminated timber (CLT). CLT is manufactured from dimension lumber (nominal 2x lumber) laid side-by-side or mass plywood panels of a specified width. Laminations of lumber are typically laid perpendicular to each other to form panels of various thicknesses that are bonded together using heat resistant adhesives that cure in large hydraulic presses. CLT commonly consists of an odd number of laminations. These solid wood panels can be anywhere from 6 inches to 20 inches nominal thickness and 60 feet long. Typical CLT panels will be 6 inches to 14 inches nominal thickness. The panels are fabricated off site, transported onto the construction site and assembled in a manner that is efficient and remarkably fast. CLT panels can be used as floor, wall, or roof building elements supported by glued-laminated beams and columns. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth Bland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

    December 16, 2019 —
    When a contractor is staring down the barrel of an owner’s assessment of liquidated damages, the burden will fall on the contractor to establish that the delay was attributable to the owner and the owner’s agents. The contractor will want to do this not only to defeat the assessment of liquidated damages, but because it will want to establish that the delay caused it to incur extended field overhead (general conditions) for which the owner is responsible. A contractor supports its burden by proving the impacts to its critical path. “In general, proving an allegation of government-caused delays without a means of showing the critical path is a steep prospect.” James Talcott Construction v. U.S., 2019 WL 1040383, *8 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (unreported opinion) (finding that because contractor did NOT present a critical path analysis it could not support its claim for delay caused by the government). Avoiding the assessment of liquidated damages means the contractor needs to support that it encountered excusable delay and it is/was entitled to an extension of time to complete the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    September 09, 2019 —
    Premises liability is a relatively simple concept: landowners, lessors, and occupiers of land must keep their property safe and avoid causing harm to others. Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances including a slip and fall by an individual, a construction site accident, or an accident at occurs on a residential or commercial property. Under California law, everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. California Civil Code 1714 (a). When an individual is injured on a property, the person harmed generally brings a lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. Under this theory, an injured Plaintiff must prove the following:
    1. The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
    2. The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
    3. The plaintiff was harmed; and
    4. The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
    California Civil Jury Instructions 1000. When evaluating a negligence claim under the theory of premises liability, there are several key elements for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant to consider. First, the landowner, occupier, or lessor of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use or maintenance of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). Essentially, a landowner or occupier is required to take steps to keep individuals on the property free from harm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    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 Ms. Spatz may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of