BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska custom homes expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska parking structure expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska condominiums expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska tract home expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska casino resort expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska townhome construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska production housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska office building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska retail construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska industrial building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska condominium expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska Medical building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska hospital construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska institutional building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska low-income housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska
    Nunam Iqua Alaska construction forensic expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska soil failure expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska construction claims expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska concrete expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska expert witness roofingNunam Iqua Alaska hospital construction expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska window expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Nunam Iqua, 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 Nunam Iqua Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    609 S KNIK GOOSE BAY RD STE G
    Wasilla, AK 99654

    Nunam Iqua Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Nunam Iqua Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Nunam Iqua Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Nunam Iqua Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Nunam Iqua Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Nunam Iqua Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Nunam Iqua Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Nunam Iqua Alaska


    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Housing-Related Spending Makes Up Significant Portion of GDP

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

    Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    Construction Industry Survey Says Optimism Hits All-Time High

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Which Cities have the Most Affordable Homes?

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case
    Corporate Profile

    NUNAM IQUA ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Nunam Iqua, Alaska Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Nunam Iqua'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
    Nunam Iqua, Alaska

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    September 09, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s insurer client on an issue of first impression in Texas. The issue before the trial court was whether, under Texas law, an insurer is required to demonstrate prejudice resulting from an insured’s failure to comply with an agreed term set in an endorsement to the parties’ insurance contract establishing a specific time limit for an insured to give the insurer notice of a claim. The case involved alleged damage to an insured’s commercial property from a hailstorm. The insured did not report the alleged loss to its insurer until approximately 17 months after the date of loss. The insurer denied the claim based on a one-year notice requirement in a policy endorsement. The Texas Windstorm or Hail Loss Conditions Amendment Endorsement stated that:
    In addition to your obligation to provide us with prompt notice of loss or damage, with respect to any claim where notice of the claim is reported to us more than one year after the reported date of loss or damage, this policy shall not provide coverage for such claims.
    The insured sued the insurer in Houston federal court, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. The insured argued the insurer was required to show prejudice from the insured’s late notice; the insurer argued that a showing of prejudice was not required. The trial court recognized that this issue had not been decided by the Texas Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Raney, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Raney may be contacted at craney@grsm.com

    Guessing as to your Construction Damages is Not the Best Approach

    November 18, 2019 —
    Arbitrarily guessing as to your construction damages is NOT the best approach. Sure, experts can be costly. No doubt about it. Having an expert versus guessing as to your construction damages caused by another party’s breach of contract is a no brainer. Engage an expert or, at a minimum, be in a position to competently testify as to your damages caused by another party’s breach of contract. Otherwise, the guessing is not going to get you very far as a concrete subcontractor found out in Patrick Concrete Constructors, Inc. v. Layne Christensen Co., 2018 WL 6528485 (W.D. New York 2018) where the subcontractor could not competently support its delay-related damages or change orders and, equally important, could not support that the damages were proximately caused by the general contractor’s breach of the subcontract. In this case, the concrete subcontractor entered into a subcontract to perform concrete work for a public project. The project was delayed and the general contractor was required to pay liquidated damages to the owner. Not surprisingly, the subcontractor disputed liability for delays and sued the general contractor for all of its delay-related damages “in the form of labor and materials escalation, loss of productivity, procurement and impact costs, field and home office overhead, idle equipment, inability to take on other work, lost profits, and interest.” Patrick Concrete Constructors, 2018 WL at *1. The general contractor moved for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s delay-related damages – the subcontractor’s damages were nothing but guesses and the subcontractor could not prove the general contractor was the cause of the subcontractor’s 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

    Design-Assist, an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry[1]

    December 02, 2019 —
    “Design-Assist” is one of the recent cost-saving trends being touted for construction projects and, in particular, construction projects utilizing alternative procurement methods. If an internet search for the term, “design-assist” is made, the result will be numerous construction industry articles and white papers lauding “design-assist” as a recent cost-saving trend in construction procurement. From a legal perspective, however, the term “design-assist” is notably absent from court opinions and most state licensing laws. With the exception of the ConsensusDocs, few standard form contracts even include the term “design-assist” in their text. The ConsensusDocs agreement provides examples of the Constructor’s obligations to perform “assisting activities” (the term “design-assist” is not used) and states that, notwithstanding the performance of such “assisting activities” by the Constructor, the responsibility of the design remains with the Designer unless otherwise stated in the Contract:
    • Article 4.5 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL’S RESPONSIBIITIES The Designer shall furnish or provide all design and engineering services necessary to design the Project in accordance with the Owner’s objectives … the Designer shall draw upon the assistance of Constructor and others in developing the design, but the Designer shall retain overall responsibility for all design decisions….
    • Article 4.6 CONSTRUCTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES [T]he Constructor shall assist the Designer in the development of the Project Plan and Project Design but shall not provide professional services which constitute the practice of architecture or engineering unless the Constructor needs to provide such services in order to carry out its responsibilities … or unless specifically called for by the Contract Documents.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    July 29, 2019 —
    A Finnish experimentation project developed a framework for classifying ground conditions for building and infrastructure construction. It will help anticipate the future cost of foundation laying during the early stages of city planning. The ground conditions of an area can have a substantial effect on the costs and the environmental impacts of constructing buildings and infrastructure. At early stage, urban designers don’t typically have enough data to make smart decisions about zoning in that respect as obtaining that data is time-consuming and hence also costly. Consequently, an experimentation project called MAKU-digi: Making the costs of land use visible devised a method for automating the analysis of ground conditions. I had the pleasure of interviewing Juha Liukas, Lead Advisor at Sitowise, and Hilkka Kallio, Geologist at Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), about the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    July 22, 2019 —
    The magazine, Construction Executive, recently rated the top construction law firms in the United States. We are pleased to announce that our firm was rated as number one in Oregon and Alaska and number two in the state of Washington behind Perkins Coie, LLP. In its inaugural ranking, Construction Executive reached out to hundreds of law firms nationwide with a dedicated construction practice to determine who the industry leaders were. Ahlers Cressman & Sleight ranked 22nd overall in the United States among all construction law firms. This survey considered revenues from each of the law firm’s construction practices, the number of lawyers in the firm’s construction practice, the percentage of the firm’s total revenues derived from construction practice, the number of states in which the firm is licensed to practice and the year in which the construction practice was established. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

    Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

    December 02, 2019 —
    The Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019). A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched. Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole. The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality. 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

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    September 09, 2019 —
    Multi-employer worksites are a frequent occurrence in the construction industry as employees from various companies often occupy the same site while a project is being completed. While the need for employees from different companies may be necessary to perform the various tasks required by a project, the presence of multiple employers, and their employees, on the same worksite can result in an increased risk of safety hazards. Companies performing construction work should be, and generally are, aware of OSHA’s ability to issue citations for workplace safety violations. What many companies may not know, however, is that OSHA’s ability to cite employers is not limited to workplace conditions that are unsafe only to that employer’s direct employees. Rather, OSHA also has the ability to cite an employer, and often does issue such citations, for conditions that could result in injury or death to another company’s employees. The policy which provides OSHA with this citation ability is CPL 02-00-124 and is called the Multi-Employer Citation Policy (the “Policy”). Under the language of the Policy, OSHA has the ability to cite multiple employers for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the same hazardous workplace condition. Critically, responsibilities under the Policy do not depend on the employer’s job title but are determined by the employer’s role. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip C. Bauknight, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Bauknight may be contacted at pbauknight@fisherphillips.com

    Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

    August 13, 2019 —
    A subcontractor or supplier not in direct contract with an owner must serve a Notice to Owner within 45 days of initial furnishing to preserve construction lien rights. Of course, the notice of commencement should be reviewed to determine whether the subcontractor or supplier has construction lien or payment bond rights so that it knows how to best proceed in the event of nonpayment. Serving a Notice to Owner should be done as a matter of course — a standard business operation; no exceptions. 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