BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums Building Consultant Micco Florida multi family housing Building Consultant Micco Florida concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Micco Florida parking structure Building Consultant Micco Florida low-income housing Building Consultant Micco Florida high-rise construction Building Consultant Micco Florida custom homes Building Consultant Micco Florida hospital construction Building Consultant Micco Florida tract home Building Consultant Micco Florida casino resort Building Consultant Micco Florida custom home Building Consultant Micco Florida mid-rise construction Building Consultant Micco Florida industrial building Building Consultant Micco Florida condominium Building Consultant Micco Florida landscaping construction Building Consultant Micco Florida Subterranean parking Building Consultant Micco Florida retail construction Building Consultant Micco Florida institutional building Building Consultant Micco Florida housing Building Consultant Micco Florida townhome construction Building Consultant Micco Florida Medical building Building Consultant Micco Florida structural steel construction Building Consultant Micco Florida
    Micco Florida civil engineer expert witnessMicco Florida construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessMicco Florida construction cost estimating expert witnessMicco Florida roofing construction expertMicco Florida expert witness commercial buildingsMicco Florida eifs expert witnessMicco Florida hospital construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Micco, 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 Micco 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

    Micco Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Micco Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Micco Florida


    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

    Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations

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

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

    ADP Says Payrolls at Companies in U.S. Increase 200,000

    2018 Spending Plan Boosts Funding for Affordable Housing

    Do You Really Want Mandatory Arbitration in Your Construction Contract?

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November
    Corporate Profile

    MICCO FLORIDA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Micco, Florida Building Consultant 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 Micco'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 Consultant News & Info
    Micco, Florida

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    November 12, 2019 —
    Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019). Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary "shoring " was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place. Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a "collapse of a building." Collapse was defined by the policy as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building," such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    November 24, 2019 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that U.S. News-Best Lawyers® has recognized the firm in its 2020 "Best Law Firms" rankings, with six of its practice areas earning the highest ranking possible - Tier 1 in the Orange County Metro area. The practices recognized include Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation - Construction, Litigation - Real Estate and Real Estate Law. Firms included in the 2020 "Best Law Firms" list have been recognized by their clients and peers for their professional excellence. Firms achieving a Tier 1 ranking have consistently demonstrated a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. “We are grateful that the firm’s clients and our peers again recognize our personalized approach to legal service. We strive to provide creative solutions that propel our clients’ businesses forward,” said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. To be eligible for the “Best Law Firms” ranking, a firm must have at least one attorney recognized in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America for a specific practice area. Best Lawyers recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S., selected through exhaustive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    January 20, 2020 —
    Latosha M. Ellis, an associate in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage Practice, was recently named to The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 class of 2019. The professional honorary association recognizes attorneys under 40 from each state who demonstrate superior leadership, reputation, influence, stature and profile as a black lawyer. Selection is by invitation only following a multi-phase review process that includes peer nominations and third party research. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    December 22, 2019 —
    Developers in California know that getting approval to build new housing projects can be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But a new policy is finally coming into full effect which could help developers cut through those barriers. SB 35, enacted in 2017, streamlines the approval process for housing developments in areas with inadequate housing supply, so long as the developments meet certain criteria. We have written elsewhere about the initial impacts of SB 35. SB 35 has successfully allowed some developers to obtain their entitlements quickly and easily through a streamlined process, but some local governments have resisted the use of SB 35. For example, the City of Los Altos denied an application that attempted to obtain streamlining through SB 35, prompting a nonprofit housing organization to sue. In Cupertino, the Planning Commission Chairman advocated in April 2019 for rescinding the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the Vallco Mall, which would include over 2,400 units of housing, while some residents have sued to block the development. As a result, it is crucial for developers to understand the details of SB 35 and make sure to meet all of its requirements. Any misstep may allow a recalcitrant local government to deny that a development project qualifies for SB 35 treatment and attempt to block it. In November 2018, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released Guidelines to clarify the criteria for SB 35 and assist cities in determining whether projects qualify for streamlining. Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury attorneys Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Walker may be contacted at alexander.walker@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

    October 07, 2019 —
    Seven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible. The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony. Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

    October 14, 2019 —
    The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order. After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com

    Ensuring Efficient Arbitration of Construction Disputes Involving Mechanic’s Liens

    February 18, 2020 —
    There may be tension between the enforcement of statutory mechanic’s lien claims when a contractual dispute resolution provision calls for arbitration. Once the parties are in arbitration, it may not be clear whether the arbitrator has authority to make factual determinations regarding amount and validity of mechanic’s liens, and whether courts are bound by these determinations. This uncertainty stems from the fact that in most states a mechanic’s lien can only be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, many mechanic’s liens statutes define foreclosure as a “judicial process,” and courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to issue orders foreclosing on real property1. The risk for contractors and owners is that they will spend time and money re-litigating factual issues related to proving elements of a mechanic’s lien claim, including the proper lien amount, timeliness and other prerequisites. Without a clear understanding of what issues and elements are arbitrable, the parties run the risk that an arbitrator will rule on certain elements only to find out during post-arbitration lien foreclosure proceedings that the arbitrator lacked authority to make determinations on those elements. Questions therefore arise whether a court will enforce the arbitrator’s determinations and whether the parties must relitigate mechanic’s lien issues creating a further risk of inconsistent rulings. These risks can be minimized through arbitration provisions which address these issues, express requests in arbitration demands and by ensuring that arbitration awards contain explicit determinations of mechanic’s liens issues. Reprinted courtesy of Robert G. Campbell & Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Potter may be contacted at tpotter@coxcastle.com Mr. Campbell may be contacted at rcampbell@coxcastle.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    February 03, 2020 —
    When preparing a contractor’s final payment affidavit, I always suggest for a contractor (or anyone in privity of contract with the owner) to identify the undisputed amounts their accounting reflects is owed to ALL subcontractors, etc., regardless of whether that entity preserved their lien rights. If the contractor provided a payment bond, I footnote this simply to support that none of the lower-tiered subcontractors have lien rights or are the traditional “lienor.” (Thus, there is no prejudice to the owner if an entity is inadvertently omitted from the affidavit.) There are times, however, where a contractor does not identify a subcontractor that did not serve a notice to owner and, therefore, has no valid lien rights. Or, a contractor omits a lienor that actually did serve a notice to owner and preserve its lien rights; this happens. There was an older First District Court of Appeals case that harshly (and, quite, unfairly) held that the contractor must identify everyone in the final payment affidavit regardless of whether that entity timely served a notice to owner or their lien is invalid. This case, however, predated, a 1998 statutory change to Florida’s Lien Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com