BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska custom home expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska hospital construction expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska townhome construction expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska low-income housing expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska condominium expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska condominiums expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska institutional building expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska custom homes expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska office building expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska housing expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska industrial building expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska production housing expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska parking structure expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska retail construction expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska multi family housing expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska casino resort expert witness Brevig Mission Alaska
    Brevig Mission Alaska expert witness commercial buildingsBrevig Mission Alaska construction cost estimating expert witnessBrevig Mission Alaska building consultant expertBrevig Mission Alaska structural concrete expertBrevig Mission Alaska construction project management expert witnessBrevig Mission Alaska delay claim expert witnessBrevig Mission Alaska soil failure expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Brevig Mission, Alaska

    Alaska Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB151 limits the damages that can be awarded in a construction defect lawsuit to the actual cost of fixing the defect and other closely related costs such as reasonable temporary housing expenses during the repair of the defect, any reduction in market value cause by the defect, and reasonable and necessary attorney fees.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Brevig Mission Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Brevig Mission Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    609 S KNIK GOOSE BAY RD STE G
    Wasilla, AK 99654

    Brevig Mission Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Brevig Mission Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Anchorage
    Local # 0215
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Brevig Mission Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Kenai Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 0233
    PO Box 1753
    Kenai, AK 99611

    Brevig Mission Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0225
    9085 Glacier Highway Ste 202
    Juneau, AK 99801

    Brevig Mission Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Brevig Mission Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Brevig Mission Alaska


    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    Manhattan Gets First Crowdfunded Condos

    Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Mandatory Energy Benchmarking is On Its Way

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

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

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

    How AI Can Become a Design Adviser
    Corporate Profile

    BREVIG MISSION ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Brevig Mission, Alaska Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Brevig Mission's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Brevig Mission, Alaska

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    April 05, 2021 —
    On March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship. Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys. Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    March 29, 2021 —
    As COVID-19 disrupts work and life as we know it, the question many contractors have is what protections are available against the inevitable project impacts and delays? Generally, construction contracts require a contractor to timely perform work until project completion or potentially face damages (liquidated or actual) and possible termination. When events occur, however, that are beyond our control (such as a national pandemic), it is important to review and understand what contract provisions or avenues are available for potential relief.
    1. Review Your Contract For A Force Majeure Provision.
    2. A “force majeure” contract provision is commonly included in construction contracts, service agreements, purchase orders, etc. It typically covers events or conditions that can be neither anticipated nor controlled. These provisions, however, will vary greatly from contract to contract and may not include the language “force majeure” but rather may be included in general delay or impact clauses. For example, some common provisions include:
      • Washington State Department of Transportation Clause (2018 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction): The Contractor shall rebuild, repair, restore, and make good all damages to any portion of the permanent or temporary Work occurring before the Physical Completion Date and shall bear all the expense to do so, except damage to the permanent Work caused by: (a) acts of God, such as earthquake, floods, or other cataclysmic phenomenon of nature, or (b) acts of the public enemy or of governmental authorities; or (c) slides in cases where Section 2-03.3(11) is applicable; Provided, however, that these exceptions shall not apply should damages result from the Contractor’s failure to take reasonable precautions or to exercise sound engineering and construction practices in conducting the Work.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Watkins may be contacted at Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com

    Generally, What Constitutes A Trade Secret Is A Question of Fact

    February 01, 2021 —
    In construction, contractors maintain competitiveness by compiling, combining, utilizing, or developing proprietary and unique systems. The systems can be from a cost standpoint (determining general conditions or general requirement costs and percentages including percentages for insurance) or can be with respect to certain construction assembly or delegated design components. Such proprietary and unique systems are trade secrets to the contractors and efforts are taken to identify such information as confidential when proposing on a project. Contractors would not want such systems disclosed to others because it would dilute and impact what they believe is valuable and makes them competitive in the marketplace. Florida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“FUTSA”) creates a statutory cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. (FUTSA is set forth in Florida Statute s. 688.001 en seq.) FUTSA displaces or “preempts all claims [such as common law claims] based on misappropriation of trade secrets.” Alphamed Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Arriva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 391 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1167 (S.D.Fla. 2005). See also Fla. Stat. s. 688.008. Florida Statute s. 688.002 (found here) defines the terms “trade secret” and “misappropriation.” 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

    U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.

    November 09, 2020 —
    On September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision. The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known. Reprinted courtesy of Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    October 26, 2020 —
    Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Measure of Damages for a Chattel Including Loss of Use

    November 16, 2020 —
    In a non-construction case, but an interesting case nonetheless, the Second District Court of Appeals talks about the measure of damages when dealing with chattel (property) including loss of use damages. Chattel, you say? While certainly not a word used in everyday language, a chattel is “an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (such as buildings) connected with real property.” Equipment, machinery, personal items, furniture, etc. can be considered chattel. With respect to the measure of damages for a chattel:
    “Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value,” the plaintiff may make an election out of two theories of recovery in addition to compensation for the loss of use. Badillo v. Hill, 570 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928 (Am. Law Inst. 1939)). In addition to compensation for the loss of use, the plaintiff may elect either “the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm” or “the reasonable cost of repairs or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs.” Id. (quoting Restatement of Torts § 928).
    Sack v. WSW Rental of Sarasota, LLC, 45 Fla.L.Weekly D2306a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Sack is a good example of a case dealing with the measure of damages with a chattel, here, an aircraft, including loss of use damages. 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

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    November 02, 2020 —
    Previously denying consolidation of all COVID-19 business interruption claims [post here], the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation allowed consolidation of one group of cases against Society Insurance Company while denying consolidation of four other groups of cases. In re Soc'y Ins. Co. COVID-19 Bus. Interruption Protection Ins. Litigation, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183678 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 2, 2020). Claims against Society encompassed 34 actions filed in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. The court found that centralization of the Society actions would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions shared common factual allegations that Society wrongfully denied policy holders' claims for business interruption coverage. Plaintiffs contended that Society preemptively decided to deny their claims. 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

    Five Steps Employers Should Take In the Second Year Of the COVID-19 Pandemic

    March 29, 2021 —
    For the past year, employers faced unprecedented difficulties as they navigated the twists, turns and ever-present challenges the COVID-19 pandemic dished out. A year later, new challenges face employers. The promise of vaccines, the fear of new variants, and the realization that “normal” will never look quite the same, leave many employers to wonder: “what next?”. As employers prepare to enter the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, here are five things they should plan to do. 1. Update Workplace Safety Measures At the onset of the pandemic, employers struggled to understand the safety obligations involved in preventing the spread of COVID in the workplace. As we approach the second year of the pandemic, clearer legal standards and better science exist requiring employers to update the steps they are taking to keep their workplaces safe. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura H. Corvo, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Corvo may be contacted at corvol@whiteandwilliams.com