BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida custom home Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida mid-rise construction Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida hospital construction Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida retail construction Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida condominium Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida high-rise construction Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida custom homes Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida Medical building Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida Subterranean parking Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida casino resort Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida multi family housing Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida landscaping construction Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida townhome construction Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida parking structure Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida housing Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida industrial building Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida tract home Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida institutional building Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida low-income housing Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida production housing Building Consultant Oldsmar Florida
    Oldsmar Florida construction defect expert witnessOldsmar Florida engineering expert witnessOldsmar Florida construction expert testimonyOldsmar Florida construction expertsOldsmar Florida architecture expert witnessOldsmar Florida consulting engineersOldsmar Florida engineering consultant
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Oldsmar Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Oldsmar Florida Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Oldsmar Florida


    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Nationally Ranked as a 2020 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®

    Job Gains a Positive for Housing

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Mountain States Super Lawyers 2019 Recognizes 21 Nevada Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Home Sales Topping $100 Million Smash U.S. Price Records

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    Lawyer Claims HOA Scam Mastermind Bribed Politicians

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    Mediating is Eye Opening

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void
    Corporate Profile

    OLDSMAR FLORIDA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Oldsmar, 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 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 Consultant News & Info
    Oldsmar, Florida

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    July 22, 2019 —
    State of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    December 30, 2019 —
    The National Transportation Safety Board’s Oct. 8 release of documents related to its FIU bridge collapse investigation raises questions but provides no definitive conclusions about why the partially built structure suddenly crashed to the ground on March 15, 2018, killing six. The last official word on the cause of the fatal collapse will have to await the agency’s final report, scheduled to be released on Oct. 22. Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Saudi Arabia Awards Contracts for Megacity Neom’s Worker Housing

    September 16, 2019 —
    Saudi Arabia has awarded to two Saudi firms contracts to build worker housing for its futuristic mega-city called Neom, as plans for the $500 billion project move forward despite skepticism from investors. Tamimi Group and Saudi Arabian Trading & Construction Co. won contracts to finance, build and operate three residential areas with capacity to house 30,000 people, Neom said in a statement on Sunday. The areas will be part of a so-called “Construction Village,” which Neom later plans to expand to accommodate more than 100,000 residents, it said. Neom did not say how much the contracts were worth. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Vivian Nereim, Bloomberg

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Based Upon Exclusion for Contractual Assumption of Liability

    August 06, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court for West Virginia determined the policy's contractual assumption exclusion barred coverage for the general contractor based upon claims of faulty workmanship. J.A. St & Assocs. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 205 (May 1, 2019). J.A. Street & Associates, Inc. entered a contract with the developer, Thundering Herd Development, L.L.C., to build a commercial shopping center on seventy-eight acres of land. Street agreed to oversee the site preparation for the development and the construction of many of the buildings. Thundering Herd retained an engineering firm, S&ME, Inc. to do geotechnical exploration and to provide advice regarding land preparation for the shopping center. Thundering Heard also entered an agreement with the Target Corporation to construct a store on a pad to be prepared at the shopping center. Street hired subcontractors to prepare the site by grading the land and installing fill material. A slope was constructed at the rear of the proposed Target site, but it failed, causing a landslide, damage to the pad, and damage to adjacent property owned by a third party. Thundering Heard incurred $721,875 in additional costs to repair this slope, reconstruct the Target site, and compensate the neighbor for the damage to the adjacent property. 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

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

    October 21, 2019 —
    In Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lester Bldgs., LLC 2019 WI 70, 2019 Wisc. LEXIS 272, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether a subrogation waiver clause in a construction contract between the defendant and the plaintiff’s insured violated Wisconsin statute § 895.447, which prohibits limitations of tort liability in construction contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the waiver clause did not violate the statute because it merely shifted the responsibility for the payment of damages to the defendant’s insurance company. The waiver clause did not limit or eliminate the defendant’s tort liability. This case establishes that while § 895.447 prohibits construction contracts from limiting tort liability, a subrogation waiver clause that merely shifts responsibility for the payment of damages from a tortfeasor to an insurer does not violate the statute and, thus, is enforceable. In Rural Mutual, the plaintiff’s insured, Jim Herman, Inc. (Herman), entered into a contract with Lester Buildings, LLC (Lester) to design and construct a barn on Herman’s property. The contract included a provision that stated the following: Both parties waive all rights against each other and any of their respective contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of any tier and any design professional engaged with respect to the Project, for recovery of any damages caused by casualty of other perils to the extent covered by property insurance applicable to the Work or the Project, except such rights as they have to the proceeds of such property insurance and to the extent necessary to recover amounts relating to deductibles of self-insured retentions applicable to insured losses. . . . This waiver of subrogation shall be effective notwithstanding allegations of fault, negligence, or indemnity obligation of any party seeking the benefit or production [sic] of such waiver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    September 30, 2019 —
    New technologies are redefining how to plan, build and deliver the full spectrum of construction projects. Automation, software and new processes are changing the construction industry in unprecedented ways, and construction management is evolving along with it. Construction companies are adapting—using innovative tools and resources, joined by more aggressive risk management and decision-making methods. All the while, safety remains at the heart of every successful new build. Envisioning the Modern Job Site Productivity has increased by leaps and bounds as processes have gotten faster and cheaper. Twenty years ago, the industry looked completely different— a $500 million project would have taken four years to deliver; today, it can be done in 29 months. These new projects are becoming incredibly complex as new technologies change the size and scope, giving rise to more specialization and fragmentation. Building projects faster with fewer people requires a whole new level of preparation. This is where advanced planning and advanced work packaging can play a big role—by informing exactly how the material is going to arrive, how it will be staged, how it will be fabricated and how the area can be best managed to deliver the work. Reprinted courtesy of Neil Riddle & Brent Burger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Riddle may be contacted at RiddleRN@bv.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at BurgerBB@bv.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss

    September 30, 2019 —
    The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently rejected a claim by a group of insurance companies (“Underwriters”) against American Global Maritime Inc. for more than $500 million that the Underwriters paid the named insured under an Off-Shore Construction Risk insurance policy for losses resulting from the an alleged off-shore oil rig failure. The action arose out of alleged construction defects related to Chevron’s “Big Foot” oil-drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron hired American Global to be the marine warranty surveyor responsible for reviewing and certifying the project’s specifications and materials. American Global issued the certificate of approval required for the project to proceed; however, during the attempted installation of the platform in 2015, it was alleged that parts from the structure fell to the sea floor. The Underwriters paid more than $500 million in connection with the incident under an Off-Shore Construction insurance policy they had issued to Chevron. After paying the claim, the Underwriters filed a negligence action against American Global and other contractors involved in the project. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews & Kurth and Daniel Hentschel , Hunton Andrews & Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    November 04, 2019 —
    California’s highest court held yesterday in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., that the state’s insurance notice-prejudice rule is a “fundamental public policy” for the purpose of choice of law analyses. This unanimous ruling, issued in response to certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, confirms and emphasizes California’s common law rule that policyholders who provide “late notice” may proceed with their insurance claim, absent a showing by the insurer of substantial prejudice. The California Supreme Court also extended the prejudice requirement, holding that a first-party insurer must show that it was prejudiced before denying coverage under a policy’s “consent provision,” which typically provides that the policyholder must obtain the insurer’s “consent” before incurring costs and expenses. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Michelle M. Spatz Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of