BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Madrid Alabama hospital construction expert witness Madrid Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Madrid Alabama office building expert witness Madrid Alabama institutional building expert witness Madrid Alabama concrete tilt-up expert witness Madrid Alabama tract home expert witness Madrid Alabama production housing expert witness Madrid Alabama low-income housing expert witness Madrid Alabama retail construction expert witness Madrid Alabama casino resort expert witness Madrid Alabama condominiums expert witness Madrid Alabama Medical building expert witness Madrid Alabama custom home expert witness Madrid Alabama custom homes expert witness Madrid Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Madrid Alabama multi family housing expert witness Madrid Alabama parking structure expert witness Madrid Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Madrid Alabama high-rise construction expert witness Madrid Alabama townhome construction expert witness Madrid Alabama housing expert witness Madrid Alabama
    Madrid Alabama construction safety expertMadrid Alabama engineering consultantMadrid Alabama construction expert witness consultantMadrid Alabama expert witness roofingMadrid Alabama engineering expert witnessMadrid Alabama concrete expert witnessMadrid Alabama fenestration expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Madrid, Alabama

    Alabama Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Although there is case law precedent for right to repair, Title 6 Article 13A states action must be commenced within 2 years after cause and not more than 13 years after completion of construction.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Madrid Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tallapoosa Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0186
    714 Commerce Drive
    Alexander City, AL 35010
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Tuscaloosa
    Local # 0188
    2009 Paul W Bryant Dr
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35401

    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Chilton County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0117
    209 Parliament Parkway
    Maylene, AL 35114
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lee Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0136
    528 Lafayette Pl
    Auburn, AL 36830
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Phenix City
    Local # 0172
    1808 Opelika Road
    Phenix City, AL 36867
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Associated Home Builders of Greater Birmingham
    Local # 0116
    5000 Grantswood Road Ste 240
    Irondale, AL 35210

    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117

    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Madrid Alabama


    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

    Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

    Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got

    Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com
    Corporate Profile

    MADRID ALABAMA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Madrid, Alabama 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Madrid'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
    Madrid, Alabama

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    December 09, 2019 —
    The insurer denied the insured contractor's claim seeking a defense for faulty workmanship based upon the ongoing operations exclusion. PJR Constr. of N.J. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D. N. J. July 31, 2019). PJR Construction was the general contractor to build a swim club and pavilion building for Cambridge Real Property, LLC. PJR began construction on May 29, 2012, and was to complete the construction by March 1, 2013. The project took much longer than anticipated. PJR was denied access to the site on November 13, 2014. Cambridge contended PJR tolerated shoddy workmanship and breached the terms of the contract documents. Cambridge estimated that the project was between 55% and 74.3% complete. PJR and Cambridge went to arbitration. PJR sought a defense from the insurers. Coverage was denied based upon exclusions j (5) and j (6). Exclusion j (5), which the court referred to as the "Ongoing Operations Exclusion," provided the policy did not apply to,
    Property Damage to . . . [t]hat particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the property damage arises out of those operations.
    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

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    September 04, 2019 —
    Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law. Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C). To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    February 03, 2020 —
    As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
    an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
    The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” 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

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    February 03, 2020 —
    In California there are few tools which work to protect the employer, and California employers may have just lost another one. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newson signed into law AB 51, which bans the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts. More specifically, AB 51 adds Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code, making it unlawful to require a prospective employee, or current employee, to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or the California Labor Code, starting January 1, 2020. Additionally, an employer is also prohibited from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant or employee who may choose not to sign a voluntary arbitration agreement. Previously, an employer was able to require employees and prospective employees to agree to arbitration to resolve almost any and all disputes between the employee and the employer as a term of their employment. These terms were often the bulk of employers’ written contracts. Employers could have employees waive the right to a jury trial, the right to court costs, and other expenses, provided that the employer paid for the expenses of the alternative dispute resolution. The injured employees right to recover attorney’s fees was always a non-waivable right under the Labor Code. There were only a few actions which could not be arbitrated, the most prominent exception being the right to seek recovery under the Private Attorney’s General Action (PAGA). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tim Scully, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Scully may be contacted at tscully@porterlaw.com

    Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    September 23, 2019 —
    Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 430 (May 30, 2019), a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found “hundreds, if not thousands of cigarettes” in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and against the Union. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    Congratulations to Jonathan Kaplan on his Promotion to Partner!

    February 10, 2020 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce the promotion of Jonathan Kaplan to Partner! Jonathan has been with the firm for nearly eight years out of our Newport Beach office. He focuses his practice on general liability defense and construction litigation matters, in addition to handling high-profile plaintiff defect cases. Jonathan earned his law degree from Chapman University School of Law, obtaining a certificate in Environmental, Real Estate and Land Use Law, and went to undergrad at the University of Washington. Jonathan is an active participant within the firm’s Hiring Committee and assists with legal recruitment at the prominent Orange County law schools. Jonathan is also an avid hiker and has coordinated several hiking events for our Southern California offices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    December 09, 2019 —
    The French government’s anti-trust agency has fined the national architects’ registration group and four regional councils $1.64 million (€1.5 million) for price-fixing design fees on public works. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    October 07, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
    At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
    This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. 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