BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure expert witness Kachemak Alaska industrial building expert witness Kachemak Alaska production housing expert witness Kachemak Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Kachemak Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Kachemak Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Kachemak Alaska low-income housing expert witness Kachemak Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Kachemak Alaska multi family housing expert witness Kachemak Alaska custom homes expert witness Kachemak Alaska Medical building expert witness Kachemak Alaska office building expert witness Kachemak Alaska condominiums expert witness Kachemak Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Kachemak Alaska housing expert witness Kachemak Alaska institutional building expert witness Kachemak Alaska casino resort expert witness Kachemak Alaska retail construction expert witness Kachemak Alaska hospital construction expert witness Kachemak Alaska townhome construction expert witness Kachemak Alaska condominium expert witness Kachemak Alaska tract home expert witness Kachemak Alaska
    Kachemak Alaska roofing and waterproofing expert witnessKachemak Alaska structural concrete expertKachemak Alaska consulting engineersKachemak Alaska engineering consultantKachemak Alaska expert witness windowsKachemak Alaska construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessKachemak Alaska expert witness concrete failure
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Kachemak, 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 Kachemak Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Kachemak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Kachemak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Kachemak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Kachemak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Kachemak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Kachemak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Kachemak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Kachemak Alaska


    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Additional Insured in Construction Defect Case

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

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

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

    The Argument for Solar Power

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

    The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Time is Money. Unless You’re an Insurance Company

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

    HB 20-1046 - Private Retainage Reform - Postponed Indefinitely

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute
    Corporate Profile

    KACHEMAK ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Kachemak, Alaska Construction 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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Kachemak, Alaska

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    June 28, 2021 —
    On May 27, 2021, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73. In that case, the court decided two significant issues that apparently had never been expressly ruled on by a Colorado appellate court before: (1) that Colorado’s common-law after-acquired title doctrine was not abrogated by adoption of the after-acquired interest statute; and (2) that utility easements may be implied by necessity. As is often the case in matters involving access and implied property rights, the facts and history underlying Amada are complicated, but the case’s two most significant rulings are not. Instead, the basic legal principles established (or confirmed) in Amada appear to be broadly applicable, and real property practitioners should take note of these significant developments (or clarifications) in the law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    Traub Lieberman Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Client Under Florida’s Newly Implemented Summary Judgment Standard

    August 23, 2021 —
    On July 27, 2021, the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida granted summary judgment in favor of a client insurer defended by Traub Lieberman Partner Heather M. Fleming and Associate Gregory H. Lercher in connection with a first party property lawsuit arising from Hurricane Irma that involved multiple, comingled claims, in part resolved via prior appraisal. As of May 1, 2021, Florida state courts have applied a new summary judgment standard after Florida’s longstanding rule was amended by the Supreme Court of Florida. The amendment aligns Florida’s standard with that of the federal courts and the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard codified in Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court of Florida’s stated goal in adopting the new standard across the Sunshine State was to improve the fairness and efficiency of Florida's civil justice system, to relieve parties from the expense and burdens of meritless litigation, and to save the work of juries for cases where there are real factual disputes that need resolution. Reprinted courtesy of Heather Fleming, Traub Lieberman and Gregory H. Lercher, Traub Lieberman Ms. Fleming may be contacted at hfleming@tlsslaw.com Mr. Lercher may be contacted at glercher@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

    August 10, 2021 —
    The selection of an arbitration panel can often lead to disputes between the parties regarding things like whether a particular candidate is qualified, whether a challenge to an arbitrator’s qualifications can be addressed pre-award and whether a party that names an unqualified arbitrator should lose the opportunity to name a replacement. In Public Risk Innovations v. Amtrust Financial Services, No. 21-cv-03573, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (N.D. Ca. July 12, 2021), the court provided answers on all three of these issues. In Amtrust, the parties filed cross-motions to compel arbitration. Although both parties agreed the dispute was arbitrable, they disagreed about whether Public Risk Innovations, Solutions and Management’s (PRISM) arbitrator was qualified under the terms of the applicable contract. In seeking to have PRISM’s arbitrator disqualified, Amtrust argued that he: (1) was not a “current or former official of an insurance or reinsurance company”; and (2) was not “disinterested.” Amtrust also argued that because PRISM named an unqualified arbitrator (and presumably the time to appoint had passed), PRISM should be deemed to have failed to select an arbitrator as required by the contract and that Amtrust had the right to select a second arbitrator of its choice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

    A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects

    April 19, 2021 —
    Following concerns that it is facilitating the sale of meaningless carbon credits to corporate clients, the Nature Conservancy says it’s conducting an internal review of its portfolio of carbon-offset projects. The nonprofit owns or has helped develop more than 20 such projects on forested lands mostly in the U.S., which generate credits that are purchased by such companies as JPMorgan Chase & Co., BlackRock Inc., and Walt Disney Co., which use them to claim large reductions in their own publicly reported emissions. The self-examination follows a Bloomberg Green investigation last year that found the world’s largest environmental group taking credit for preserving trees in no danger of destruction. The internal review is a sign that it’s at least questioning some practices that have become widespread in the environmental world, and could carry implications for the broader market for carbon credits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Elgin, Bloomberg

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    August 30, 2021 —
    Consider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be? The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild, W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com Mr. Mason may be contacted at wmason@foxrothschild.com Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at smilani@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications

    May 31, 2021 —
    The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner. Background 49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219. Reprinted courtesy of Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    12 Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    August 23, 2021 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that twelve of the firm's attorneys were recently selected for inclusion and will be recognized in their respective areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2022. Additionally, Greg Dillion has been selected to Best Lawyers 2022 Lawyer of the Year list in Construction Law. The twelve 2022 Best Lawyers are: Jason Moberly Caruso, Michael S. Cucchissi, Jeffrey M. Dennis, Greg L. Dillion, Joseph A. Ferrentino, Jon J. Janecek, Michael B. McClellan, Thomas F. Newmeyer, John A. O'Hara, Thomas H. Reilly, Bonnie T. Roadarmel and Jane M. Samson Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication for the legal profession. Attorneys are chosen through intensive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers evaluate their professional peers. Best Lawyers listings are published in almost 70 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. About Newmeyer Dillion For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    September 06, 2021 —
    On any given day, there are a multitude of variables playing out on construction jobsites, from maintaining daily logs to track hundreds of workers to creating daily schedules to keep projects on track. What made an industry that’s arguably about 20 years in the past get a dramatic technology boost five years into the future? A global pandemic that nobody saw coming. When COVID-19 made its first appearance on construction sites in early 2020, the domino effect of project shutdowns and labor shortages created uncertainty along with budget and timeline nightmares. The pandemic shook up the industry, with many projects coming to a screeching halt. As general contractors scrambled to keep their projects moving and workers safe, technology proved to be the solution. With jobsites shutting down, coupled with a nationwide labor shortage, real-time visibility over workforce variables, such as who was on-site, where they were and who they interacted with was more important than ever. Safe proximity tracking, virtual density and access control technologies helped construction companies gain more control, visibility and the ability to deal with the ever-changing regulations due to the global pandemic. More importantly, it helped keep their valuable workforce safe. Reprinted courtesy of Alexandra McManus & Hussein Cholkamy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Cholkamy may be contacted at hussein@eyrus.com Ms. McManus may be contacted at alex@eyrus.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of