BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska condominium expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska multi family housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska production housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska industrial building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska townhome construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska casino resort expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska custom homes expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska retail construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska Medical building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska condominiums expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska low-income housing expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska custom home expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska institutional building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska office building expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska tract home expert witness Nunam Iqua Alaska
    Nunam Iqua Alaska building expertNunam Iqua Alaska testifying construction expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska consulting engineersNunam Iqua Alaska construction project management expert witnessesNunam Iqua Alaska construction scheduling expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska contractor expert witnessNunam Iqua Alaska construction expert witness consultant
    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


    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims

    How Machine Learning Can Help with Urban Development

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

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

    Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Commercial Construction Lenders Rejoice: The Pennsylvania Legislature Provides a Statutory fix for the “Kessler” Decision

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant

    South Carolina Supreme Court Finds that Consequential Damage Arise From "Occurrence"

    Harmon Tower Case Settled Prior to Start of Trial

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

    Ownership is Not a Conclusive Factor for Ongoing Operations Additional Insured Coverage

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured
    Corporate Profile

    NUNAM IQUA ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Nunam Iqua, 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
    Nunam Iqua, Alaska

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    April 22, 2019 —
    In United Services Automobile Association v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, No. 218 2017 CV 01113, [1] the Superior Court of Rockingham County, New Hampshire recently considered whether the eight-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applied to the manufacturer of a ceiling ventilation fan that was installed in the property during its original construction. The court held that New Hampshire’s statute of repose did not apply to the manufacturer because it was not involved in incorporating its product into the property. In 2012, Chad St. Francis purchased a home in Northwood, New Hampshire. The home was originally constructed in 2008, at which time a Broan-Nutone ceiling ventilation fan was installed in the first-floor bathroom. In 2016, a fire occurred at the home. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) provided property casualty insurance for the home and paid Mr. St. Francis for the damage. In 2017, USAA filed a subrogation lawsuit against Broan-Nutone, alleging that its ceiling fan caused the fire due to a design defect within the product. Broan-Nutone filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that USAA’s action was barred by New Hampshire’s statute of repose for improvements to real property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

    January 02, 2019 —
    Introduction Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information. A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household. Provisions of the Act Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act. Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer. Who Must Comply with the Act The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information. Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California. Impact According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, David A. Napper and Lana Halavi Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    E-Commerce Logistics Test Limits of Tilt-Up Construction

    January 28, 2019 —
    While “fulfillment centers” and other e-commerce logistic facilities drive a hot market for the manufacturing sector, traditional construction methods such as tilt-up concrete panels are being pushed to ever-greater heights. At a recent project in Tulsa, Okla., contractor Clayco oversaw installation of tilt-up composite panels that reached 81 ft in height, using an unusual brace and a lot of careful pre-planning. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    February 11, 2019 —
    In its recent decision in Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2019 WL 134614 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had occasion to consider the application of a prior knowledge provision in the context of a claim for mold and water-related bodily injury and property damage. Philadelphia insured a condominium property management company under a general liability insurance policy for the period September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008. In 2009, the insured was sued by a unit owner alleging bodily injury and property damage resulting from toxic mold conditions resulting from leaks that had been identified in her unit as early as 2004. Notably, the complaint alleged that mold was identified in 2006 and that repair efforts were undertaken, but that these efforts all proved unsuccessful. Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to vacate her apartment in 2008 as a result of the conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    April 03, 2019 —
    One of the 407 bills the Colorado legislature is considering as of the date of this blog post is House Bill 19-1170, the Residential Tenants Health and Safety Act, which can be found at https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1170 and clicking on the link for the recent bill text. The bill passed the House on February 26 and is in the Senate for consideration. The bill currently adds two substantive conditions to those conditions that make a residential premises uninhabitable. One is the lack of functioning appliances that conformed to applicable law when installed and that are maintained in good working order. The second is “mold that is associated with dampness, or there is any other condition causing the premises to be damp, which condition, if not remedied, would materially interfere with the health or safety of the tenant…,” referred to here as “the mold or dampness provision.” The bill also amends various procedural provisions of Colorado law to make enforcement by a tenant easier and broadens tenant remedies. The bill grants jurisdiction to county and small claims courts to grant injunctions for breach. This article focuses on the mold or dampness provision. The mold or dampness provision is vague and will likely lead to abuse. First, there is mold everywhere. While expert witnesses routinely testify about the level of exposure that is unacceptable, no generally accepted medical standards for an unacceptable level of mold exposure currently exist, and each person reacts to mold differently. There is no requirement in the bill that mold exposure exceed levels that are generally considered harmful by experts in the field, or even in excess of naturally occurring background levels. Second, some sources estimate that there are over 100,000 different species of mold. No harmful effects have been shown for many species of mold, while other species of mold are considered harmful. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    November 28, 2018 —
    The Washington State Supreme Court dealt another blow to public works contractors in Washington State. In a case recently issued by the court, Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, [1] the court expanded contractors’ obligations when providing notice on public works construction projects. The Nova Contracting case was the subject of a previous blog. The case involved Nova Contracting and the City of Olympia. Nova was the low bidder on the contract. Nova alleged that the City of Olympia did not want Nova to win the job and intentionally hindered Nova’s ability to perform the job. The facts alleged by Nova, which were covered in the previous blog, involved the City’s improper and apparently punitive rejection of submittals on the job and the City’s eventual wrongful termination of Nova. Of significance in the case is that Nova never actually began work on the job. All that Nova had done at the time of termination was begin mobilizing its equipment on site. The Court of Appeals found that Nova had alleged sufficient facts to establish that the City violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing by improperly rejecting Nova’s submissions and had breached the contract with Nova by improperly terminating. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    April 10, 2019 —
    Deference will be given to a procuring public agency in a bid protest, particularly when the issue involves whether a bid is non-responsive and constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation. You do not believe me? Perhaps you will after this holding in Biscayne Marine Partners, LLC v. City of Miami, Florida, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D467a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019): Consequently, no principle of law is clearly established…as to any obligation of the trial court (and, by analogy, an administrative hearing officer) [in a bid protest] to decide or to defer [whether a bid constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation]. If anything, the existing and clearly established principle of law inclines toward judicial deference in public agency competitive bidding disputes when the agency has exercised it discretion absent illegality, fraud, oppression or misconduct. I do not know about you, but that last underlined sentence is pretty strong language regarding judicial deference! In this case, Miami (the procuring public agency) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the redevelopment and lease of waterfront property, for the operation of a marina, boatyard, restaurant, wet slips, and a dry storage facility on the property. Miami issued five addenda to the RFP. There were three bidders. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Time to Update Your Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Forms (July 1, 2019)

    May 01, 2019 —
    In a few of my recent posts here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed a few bills that were considered and/or passed in the General Assembly this year. One of the bills is one close to my heart and a subject much discussed here, namely mechanic’s liens. HB2409 passed both houses of the General Assembly and has been signed by the Governor. This bill reconciled the language found in Virginia Code Sec. 43-4 with the various forms for general contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor/supplier forms found in later sections of the code. As you will see if you download the .pdf of the bill as signed, this involved some tweaks to 43-4 and some updates to the mechanic’s lien forms that are in the code. The recent Desai case from the Virginia Supreme Court made it clear that such action was necessary. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrissghill@constructionlawva.com