• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Port St Joe Florida Subterranean parking building expert Port St Joe Florida hospital construction building expert Port St Joe Florida parking structure building expert Port St Joe Florida structural steel construction building expert Port St Joe Florida casino resort building expert Port St Joe Florida custom homes building expert Port St Joe Florida housing building expert Port St Joe Florida industrial building building expert Port St Joe Florida concrete tilt-up building expert Port St Joe Florida tract home building expert Port St Joe Florida condominiums building expert Port St Joe Florida landscaping construction building expert Port St Joe Florida low-income housing building expert Port St Joe Florida multi family housing building expert Port St Joe Florida office building building expert Port St Joe Florida condominium building expert Port St Joe Florida production housing building expert Port St Joe Florida townhome construction building expert Port St Joe Florida Medical building building expert Port St Joe Florida custom home building expert Port St Joe Florida institutional building building expert Port St Joe Florida
    Port St Joe Florida construction code expert witnessPort St Joe Florida building envelope expert witnessPort St Joe Florida multi family design expert witnessPort St Joe Florida expert witness structural engineerPort St Joe Florida hospital construction expert witnessPort St Joe Florida forensic architectPort St Joe Florida stucco expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Port St Joe, 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 Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Port St Joe Florida

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

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

    Port St Joe Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Port St Joe Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Port St Joe Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Port St Joe Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Port St Joe Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Port St Joe Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Port St Joe Florida Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Port St Joe Florida

    After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

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

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    Fires, Hurricanes, Dangerous Heat: The US Is Reeling From a String of Disasters

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    The 2019 ISO Forms: Additions, Revisions, and Pitfalls

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/18/23) – Clean Energy, Critical Infrastructure and Commercial Concerns

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

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

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    Chambers USA 2022 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

    Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Canadian Developer Faces Charges After Massive Fire on Construction Site

    Condominium's Agent Owes No Duty to Injured Apartment Owner

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work

    The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage

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

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    One More Mechanic’s Lien Number- the Number 30

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia
    Corporate Profile


    The Port St Joe, Florida Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Port St Joe'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 Expert News & Info
    Port St Joe, Florida

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    May 07, 2014 —
    According to Architect Magazine, eighty landscape architecture and architecture firms (forty teams) submitted proposals to design the $25-million Washington D.C. 11th Street Bridge Park project. A jury has shortlisted six design teams: “Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)/Next Architects, Piet Oudolf with Glenn LaRue Smith/PUSH Studio/WXY Architecture + Urban Design, OLIN/OMA, Workshop: Ken Smith Landscape/Davis Brody Bond, Stoss Landscape Urbanism/Höweler + Yoon Architecture, and Balmori Associates/Cooper, Robertson & Partners.” The “nonprofit Building Bridges Across the River at THEARC (Town Hall Education Arts Recreation Campus) and the District's Office of Planning” launched the competition in March of this year. Architect Magazine stated that “the goal of” the project is to unify “what some call a ‘long-divided city,’ by connecting Capitol Hill and Anacostia, the neighborhoods on either side of the river.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick

    February 07, 2022 —
    (RALEIGH, N.C.)—Goldberg Segalla added William L. Nimick to the firm's Construction Litigation and Counsel group in Raleigh. Nimick was previously with The Law Offices of Stephen R. Paul in Raleigh. Nimick is an experienced litigator who focuses his practice on counseling and defending corporate entities, insurers, contractors, and subcontractors in a range of liability claims, including those alleging construction defect, personal injury, property damage, premises liability, and more. Nimick draws on a background in civil litigation, personal injury and wrongful death, workers' compensation, and subrogation. He has handled subrogation claims across North Carolina, including construction defects, motor vehicle accidents, product liability lawsuits, and large fire losses. Nimick earned his bachelor's degree at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and his juris doctor at the Campbell University Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law. About Goldberg Segalla Goldberg Segalla is a national civil litigation firm with more than 20 offices in 10 states spanning major metro markets across the U.S., providing strategic coverage wherever our clients do business. As a firm of experienced litigators and trial attorneys, Goldberg Segalla's capabilities span business and commercial disputes, employment and labor, insurance coverage, product liability, and more. Today, our more than 400 attorneys are trusted counselors to public and private clients in key sectors and industries including construction and energy, transportation, manufacturing, retail and hospitality, and insurance. To learn more, visit or follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    January 13, 2017 —
    The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Guertin may be contacted at

    Hold on Just One Second: Texas Clarifies Starting Point for Negligence Statute of Limitations

    July 11, 2022 —
    In construction or similar ongoing projects, problems often pop up. Sometimes they can pop up again and again. Making things even more complicated, one problem may affect another, seemingly new problem. When these construction problems result in property damage, timelines tend to overlap and determining when a statute of limitation begins to run for a particular claim can be difficult. Especially in states with short statute of limitations for tort claims like Texas, knowing when a statute begins to run is crucial for a subrogation professional. In Hussion St. Bldgs., LLC v. TRW Eng’rs, Inc., No. 14-20-00641-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2193, 2022 WL 1010313, the Court of Appeals of Texas provided clarity on when the two-year statute of limitations for tort claims begins to run. Reversing the judgment from the lower court, the appellate court denied summary judgment to the defendant, holding that, despite there being existing issues with the ongoing construction project, the negligence cause of action for Hussion Street Buildings, LLC (Hussion) did not begin to run more than two years prior to filing suit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    March 01, 2017 —
    I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    FDOT Races to Re-Open Storm-Damaged Pensacola Bridge

    April 12, 2021 —
    Buffeted by hurricanes, northwest Florida’s largest-ever infrastructure effort is finally seeing the light at the end of the storm. The three-mile-long bridge across Pensacola Bay is expected to reopen to traffic this spring after an ongoing replacement effort abruptly became an emergency repair job as well. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

    November 21, 2022 —
    A collapsed floor in a restaurant was found to be covered. J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163661 (D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2022). J&J Fish rented property from Vision. Vision was obligated to keep the premises insured under an all-risk policy. Vision was also responsible for maintaining and repairing the property "including the slab flooring exterior walls of the premises." Vision never obtained insurance on the building, but J&J Fish secured a commercial property policy from Crum & Forster. On May 29, 2020, approximately 25% of the building's slab floor, the section beneath the walk-in cooler, collapsed into the crawl space below. Dr. Daniel Wojnowski inspected the crawl space and observed overall dampness as well as a pool of water in the space. He concluded that the collapse occurred because the steel support beams and steel elements of the floor corroded after prolonged exposure to moisture. Based on this report, Crum & Forster denied coverage. J&J Fish sued and the parties moved for summary judgment. 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

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.

    The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.

    The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.

    The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”

    The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.

    The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”

    The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of