BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Anaheim California condominium expert witness Anaheim California casino resort expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California custom homes expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California condominiums expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California retail construction expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California multi family housing expert witness Anaheim California hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California
    Anaheim California construction expertsAnaheim California building envelope expert witnessAnaheim California construction forensic expert witnessAnaheim California hospital construction expert witnessAnaheim California structural engineering expert witnessesAnaheim California roofing construction expertAnaheim California consulting general contractor
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Roofing Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, 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:


    Roofing Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


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

    Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

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

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

    Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anaheim California Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Roofing Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California


    Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical

    My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Ninth Circuit Clarifies Viability of Takings Claims Under Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Act

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Traub Lieberman Partner Ryan Jones Provides Testimony Before Florida Senate Committees

    Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    Collapse Claim Dismissed as Untimely

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    Parking Garage Collapse May Be Due to Construction Defect

    California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Injured Worker Despite Contractor's Exclusion

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Court or Arbitration? Why Contractors Can’t Afford to Get this Wrong

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Serves as Chair of the ABA Minority Trial Lawyer Committee’s Programming Subcommittee

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    MTA Debarment Update

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

    NTSB Pittsburgh Bridge Probe Update Sheds Light on Collapse Sequence

    Design Immunity Defense Gets Special Treatment on Summary Judgment

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

    Good Signs for Housing Market in 2013

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

    Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    $17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans

    Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction
    pan itemprop="name">California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    Your AEC Firm Has a Memory Problem. Here Is How to Fix It
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Anaheim, California Roofing Expert Witness 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.

    Roofing Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    White and Williams LLP Ranked in the Chambers USA 2026 Guide

    June 15, 2026 —
    White and Williams LLP is proud to celebrate the Chambers USA 2026 Guide which has ranked several of the Firm's attorneys and practice groups, underscoring the Firm's overall commitment to providing client service excellence. The Chambers USA 2026 Guide recognized attorneys Tim Davis, Managing Partner, and Nancy Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate Group, for Real Estate: Finance in the state of Pennsylvania. Randy Maniloff, Partner, Patricia Santelle, Chair Emeritus/Former Managing Partner, and Robert Walsh, Partner were ranked for Insurance in Pennsylvania, and Thomas Pinney, Partner, was ranked in Pennsylvania for Bankruptcy/Restructuring. In the state of Maryland, Partners David Gilliss and Eric Korphage were recognized for their work in Construction. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    GRSM Attorneys Named Finalists in 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law Awards

    March 10, 2026 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani attorneys have been shortlisted as finalists for Corporate Counsel’s 2026 Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) Awards, which honor women leaders who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing the empowerment of women in the legal profession. In the Law Firm Internal Collaborative Leadership category, Stephanie Jones was recognized for her exceptional ability to foster collaboration, mentor talent, and align colleagues across GRSM. Jones has consistently demonstrated leadership rooted in trust, inclusion, and shared purpose, qualities that have strengthened the firm during a period of extraordinary growth. Her impact on the firm’s culture and success will continue as she steps into her role as Chief Operating Partner in June 2026, where she will further build on her leadership in fostering teamwork, mentorship, and alignment across the firm’s national platform. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Did You Get the Message? (And does it count?) The Legal Consequences of Text Messages, Group Chats, and Informal Digital Communication on Construction Projects

    March 17, 2026 —
    Introduction: The New Reality of Construction Communication Construction projects have always depended on a constant stream of communication. Today’s project managers, superintendents, and foremen have broadened the method of communication to include convenient forms of digital communication. Superintendents text photos of field conditions, owners send quick approvals through WhatsApp, architects clarify design intent in a Teams chat, and subcontractors coordinate sequencing through group texts. These channels are fast, convenient, and deeply embedded in modern project culture. Yet the legal framework governing construction contracts has not evolved at the same pace. Many contracts still assume – or require – that notice, directives, and approvals occur through formal written channels—letters, emails to designated recipients, or structured project‑management platforms. This disconnect creates significant legal risk, particularly for contractors who rely on informal messages as authorization for extra work or schedule changes. Courts are increasingly asked to interpret text messages, chat threads, and screenshots as evidence of notice, direction, or waiver. The outcomes vary, but the trend is unmistakable: informal digital communication is now part of the project record, and it can bind parties in ways they did not expect. Reprinted courtesy of Kellie Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Curtis Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Ros may be contacted at kros@pecklaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

    Soot Constitutes Property Damage

    March 17, 2026 —
    Applying Missouri law, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding damages for the presence of soot after a fire. Maxus Metropolitan, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 29921 (8th Cir. Nov, 17, 2025). A fire destroyed Phase 6 of a multi-building apartment complex known as the Metropolitan. At the time of the fire, all six phases of the Metropolitan were at various stages of completion, including some of which were occupied by tenants. Phase 6 was still under construction. The fire caused severe damage to Phase 5. The interiors of Phases 1-4 were unaffected by the fire. Maxus Metropolitan, the owner of the complex, had a policy with Travelers which covered up to $35 million in “direct physical loss, . . or damage.” The policy also provided coverage for up to $5 million in lost business income. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Massachusetts Nuclear Verdict Leads To $90M Bad Faith Award

    February 10, 2026 —
    Insurers in Massachusetts have long struggled with the demands of MGL ch. G.L.c 176D, § 3(9)(f), which requires “prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.” Last month a Superior Court ruling illustrated the potentially draconian consequences of a violation: finding an insurer liable for more than $90 million in bad faith damages, in a case that might have settled under $3 million with proper handling. The claimant, John Rooney, was a mason who fell off a scaffold at a construction site. He sued the general contractor. The general contractor, in turn, sought coverage as an additional insured under a series of Liberty Mutual policies issued to Rooney’s employer – the masonry company – with combined aggregate limits of $19.5 million. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Timothy J. Langan, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Langan may be contacted at langant@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...

    Fort Lauderdale Associate Secures Summary Judgment in Rare Premises Liability Win

    February 23, 2026 —
    Fort Lauderdale associate Kyle Hollander recently secured a summary judgment victory for his client, Winn-Dixie, in a contested premises liability case. This was a hotly disputed liability case of water on the floor near an ice cooler with surveillance footage of a customer constantly bringing bags of ice to and from the cooler to the register. The plaintiff unknowingly stepped into the area of dripped melted ice and fell. Kyle successfully argued based on the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony and the surveillance footage that Winn-Dixie didn’t have the requisite actual notice. Additionally, Kyle argued that the brief duration the condition remained on the floor was legally insufficient to establish constructive notice under Florida law. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence would not survive a directed verdict and granting summary judgment in favor of the defense. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute

    May 05, 2026 —
    In an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured. The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured: This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Indiana District Court Finds Crane Inspection Services Do Not Trigger “Professional Services” Exclusion in Liability Policy

    February 17, 2026 —
    In Crane 1 Holdco, Inc. et al. v. Continental Ins. Co., 23-cv-205 (N.D. Ind. Jan 12, 2026), the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana had occasion to interpret the scope and meaning of the term “professional services” in an excess liability policy exclusion. By way of background, Robert Coppage was crushed by a crane while at work. He was seriously injured and later received a significant settlement in a state court civil action against the company that inspected the crane, Crane1. Crane1 sought coverage for the settlement under a first layer excess policy issued by Continental Insurance Company, which included an exclusion for any “liability arising out of the actual or alleged rendering of, or failure to render, any professional services by the Insured or any other person for whose acts the Insured is legally responsible.” The underlying complaint alleged that Crane1 was negligent in its modification, services, maintenance, inspection, and/or repair of the crane. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com