BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Gambell Alaska industrial building expert witness Gambell Alaska tract home expert witness Gambell Alaska housing expert witness Gambell Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Gambell Alaska production housing expert witness Gambell Alaska custom home expert witness Gambell Alaska parking structure expert witness Gambell Alaska office building expert witness Gambell Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Gambell Alaska institutional building expert witness Gambell Alaska hospital construction expert witness Gambell Alaska townhome construction expert witness Gambell Alaska multi family housing expert witness Gambell Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Gambell Alaska low-income housing expert witness Gambell Alaska retail construction expert witness Gambell Alaska casino resort expert witness Gambell Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Gambell Alaska custom homes expert witness Gambell Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Gambell Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Gambell Alaska
    Gambell Alaska expert witness commercial buildingsGambell Alaska slope failure expert witnessGambell Alaska construction expert witnessesGambell Alaska civil engineer expert witnessGambell Alaska reconstruction expert witnessGambell Alaska construction cost estimating expert witnessGambell Alaska construction expert witness public projects
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Gambell, 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 Gambell 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

    Gambell Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Gambell Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Gambell Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Gambell Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Gambell Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Gambell Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Gambell Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Gambell Alaska


    2018 California Construction Law Update

    Wall Street’s Favorite Suburban Housing Bet Is Getting Crowded

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Is Construction Defect Litigation a Cause for Lack of Condos in Minneapolis?

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Force Majeure and COVID-19 in Construction Contracts – What You Need to Know

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    In Pricey California, Renters Near Respite From Landlord Gouging

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    West Coast Casualty’s 25th Construction Defect Seminar Has Begun

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Penn Station’s Revival Gets a $1.6 Billion Down Payment

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers

    Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

    Little Known Florida Venue Statue Benefitting Resident Contractors

    Kansas City Airport Terminal Project Faces Delays, Rising Costs

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

    Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

    Five Types of Structural Systems in High Rise Buildings

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    Number of Occurrences Is On the Agenda at This Year's ICLC Seminar

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam
    Corporate Profile

    GAMBELL ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Gambell, Alaska Construction Expert Witness 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Gambell'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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Gambell, Alaska

    Building the Secondary Market for Reclaimed Building Materials

    August 30, 2021 —
    For this week’s guest post Friday, Musings welcomes Mark Rabkin of Deconstruction Management, Inc., the first, dedicated, for-profit deconstruction management firm in the country. Based in Northeast Ohio, it through all stages of building removal from property acquisition to deconstruction to recycling and architectural salvage. With 10 years of professional experience as an independent risk advisor focusing on sustainable real estate and development, Mark counsels his clients on effective strategies to reduce hazards and mitigate losses. Mark oversees the marketing and administrative functions of Deconstruction Management, Inc. and is responsible for managing the architectural salvage and the upcycled material reuse and resale side of the business. Mark is a leader in the advocacy of sustainable building strategies both locally and nationally. Mark serves as the volunteer Director of Advocacy for the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the United States Green Building Council. He is also an active contributor on many of the chapter’s strategic implementation teams. Mark is a member of Entrepreneurs for Sustainability, the Council of Smaller Enterprises’ Sustainability Task Force and is an active participant in the Sustainable Cleveland 2019 Initiative. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    NYT Points to Foreign Minister and Carlos Slim for Collapse of Mexico City Metro

    July 11, 2021 —
    The collapse last month of a section of a Mexico City metro line that killed 26 people was likely due to poor construction by Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim’s Grupo Carso while foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard was mayor, according to a New York Times investigation. Problems were identified in the original construction by Slim’s company Carso Infrastructure and Construction, and the collapse was probably caused by bad welding of the steel studs that served as linchpins of the structure, the report revealed. The job may have been rushed because Ebrard sought to open the subway before his mayoral term ended in 2012, the Times said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amy Stillman, Bloomberg

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    July 05, 2021 —
    In a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.) Pursuant to the CMA:
    • Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
    • In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Caroline A. Harcourt, Pillsbury
    Ms. Harcourt may be contacted at caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    June 28, 2021 —
    On May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.” By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    May 17, 2021 —
    Direct damage to property under construction caused by faulty or defective work or defective materials has been a coverage issue for decades. Two specific policies, the Commercial General Liability for the contractors building the structure and the Builders Risk Policy on the project both are sources of potential coverage. A CGL policy protects the named insured (the contractor in this case) from third party liability arising out of the insured’s operations that results in either bodily injury or property damage. Damage to property caused by poor workmanship or defective materials would qualify as property damage. To understand how the CGL policy might respond to claims such as these, it is necessary to evaluate several exclusions in the CGL policy. CGL policies cover “property damage,” defined as physical injury to tangible property, including loss of use of such property, and loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injured. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    UPDATE: Trade Secrets Pact Allows Resumed Work on $2.6B Ga. Battery Plant

    April 19, 2021 —
    Construction on a $2.6-billion battery manufacturing plant near Atlanta can continue under an agreement reached April 11 between two rival South Korean auto battery makers—including SK Innovation, which is owner of the half-completed project. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building

    July 11, 2021 —
    Five years ago, residents of the Dolphin Tower in Sarasota, Florida were forced to evacuate after cracks appeared in their fourth-floor condominium units. “My assistant calls me and says, ‘[Kris] thinks the building is falling down,’” David Karins of Karins Engineering told Sarasota Magazine. “I said, ‘I doubt that.’ Then I got there and saw what was going on and I said, ‘You know, the building may be falling down.’” In July of 2010, city officials ordered all residents to evacuate. Five years and $11 million dollars in rehabilitation and residents were finally able to move back in last month. The Herald-Tribune had previously interviewed John Bonacci, an engineer at Sarasota’s Karins Engineering: “I’d say yes, there was grave danger. It was luck that it didn’t come all the way down. Getting shoring in there quickly was instrumental in preventing it from collapsing.” Read the full story, Sarasota Magazine... Read the full story, Herald-Tribune... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    May 31, 2021 —
    As most contractors know, scope, price and time are the “big” three in any construction contract. Nearly as important, however, are the insurance provisions. Patricularly, when things go bad on a construction project. As the next case, Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company 61 Cal.App.5th 97 (2021) discusses, the difference between “claims-made” versus “occurrence-based” coverage can be extremely important. The Guastello Case In 2003 and 2004, subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. built retaining walls in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California. Poss performed all related excavation, ground and grading work. In 2006, Thomas Guastello purchased a home in the development, and in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his lot suffered a massive failure that causing over $700,000 in damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com