BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Pilot Station Alaska Medical building expert witness Pilot Station Alaska industrial building expert witness Pilot Station Alaska tract home expert witness Pilot Station Alaska casino resort expert witness Pilot Station Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Pilot Station Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Pilot Station Alaska institutional building expert witness Pilot Station Alaska parking structure expert witness Pilot Station Alaska custom home expert witness Pilot Station Alaska custom homes expert witness Pilot Station Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Pilot Station Alaska condominiums expert witness Pilot Station Alaska housing expert witness Pilot Station Alaska condominium expert witness Pilot Station Alaska townhome construction expert witness Pilot Station Alaska retail construction expert witness Pilot Station Alaska multi family housing expert witness Pilot Station Alaska office building expert witness Pilot Station Alaska low-income housing expert witness Pilot Station Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Pilot Station Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Pilot Station Alaska
    Pilot Station Alaska testifying construction expert witnessPilot Station Alaska construction expertsPilot Station Alaska contractor expert witnessPilot Station Alaska forensic architectPilot Station Alaska construction claims expert witnessPilot Station Alaska slope failure expert witnessPilot Station Alaska roofing and waterproofing expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Pilot Station, 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 Pilot Station 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

    Pilot Station Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pilot Station Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pilot Station Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pilot Station Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pilot Station Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pilot Station Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pilot Station Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Pilot Station Alaska


    The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

    Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

    Bats, Water, Soil, and Bridges- an Engineer’s dream

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Between Scylla and Charybids: The Mediation Privilege and Legal Malpractice Claims

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

    Structure of Champlain Towers North Appears Healthy

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

    Colorado “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

    KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

    Mixed Reality for Construction: Applicability and Reality

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Construction Manager Has Defense As Additional Insured

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

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

    PILOT STATION ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    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

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    October 24, 2021 —
    For this weeks Guest Post Friday, Kirsten Grant (@kgrantcareers on Twitter) has graced us with her thoughts on a very timely topic: How to get a job as a construction attorney. Before becoming a career specialist at Kaplan University, one of the largest online universities in the nation, Kirsten Grant had faxed almost 1000 resumes, e-mailed close to 300 resumes, personally mailed 20 resumes with each one featuring “special inserts” to encourage hiring managers to read her resume (50% of those resumes received calls for an interview) and interviewed with 50 companies over the course of 5 months. Based on the feedback hiring managers provided, in addition to 10 years experience in human resources, training, recruiting and staffing she REALLY learned what hiring managers look for in a candidate and today helps over 40,000 adult learners understand how to conduct successful job searches and earn a promotions. As the real estate industry makes torrid adjustments to right itself due to foreclosures, short sales, and falling house prices, court rooms are seeing more construction law cases. As houses and properties fall into states of disrepair and as efforts are taken to repair them a chain of events take place:
    1. Property is purchased
    2. Contractors are hired to make repairs to a property
    3. The selected contractor files permits for the type of work performed
    4. After work has been performed, contactor receives compensation
    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 Reptile Theory in Practice

    September 06, 2021 —
    The “Reptile Theory” is a trial strategy that attempts to use fear and anger to make the jury dislike the defendant so strongly they will award a plaintiff a grossly excessive amount of damages. The plaintiff’s attorney will seek to activate the jurors’ “survival mode” instincts by presenting the defendant’s conduct as highly dangerous and worthy of punishment. The defendant’s conduct will be portrayed as a threat to the safety of the general public, and the award as a deterrent needed to protect the community at large. The Reptile Theory appeals to the jurors’ emotions in place of any rational, impartial evaluation of the evidence. The term “Reptile Theory” originated in the writings of nuero-physiologist Paul D. MacLean in the 1950s, who suggested that one major part of the brain consisted of a “reptilian complex” that controlled instinctive behaviors involved in aggression, dominance, and territoriality. Then in the 2009 publication “Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution” by David Ball and Don Keenan, the authors first described the “Reptile Theory” in the context of litigation. Since then it has become a hot topic in litigation as defense counsel develop methods to combat “Reptile” tactics resulting in runaway jury awards. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    September 20, 2021 —
    Awarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.” In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership. In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Governor Inslee’s Recent Vaccination Mandate Applies to Many Construction Contractors and their Workers

    September 13, 2021 —
    This month Governor Jay Inslee enacted COVID vaccination requirements that apply to certain construction contractors and their workers in Washington state. Inslee’s vaccine proclamation becomes effective October 18, 2021 and requires construction contractors, subcontractors, and their workers to be fully vaccinated to perform work onsite on certain covered projects. The following are types of covered projects where the vaccine mandate applies:
    1. State agencies: All contractors working at projects for Washington state agencies (including WSDOT, DES, DNR, etc.) if the work is required to be performed in person and onsite, regardless of the frequency or whether other workers are present. The vaccine mandate applies to indoor and outdoor settings and there is no exemption even if social distancing requirements can be met.
    2. Education/Higher Education/Child Care: All contractors performing work onsite for K-12, higher education (community colleges, technical colleges, and 4-year universities), child care and other facilities where students or persons receiving services are present. New and unoccupied projects are exempt but it does apply to public and private projects.
    3. Medical facilities: All contractors performing work at a “healthcare setting” where patients receiving care are present. “Healthcare setting” is defined as any public or private setting that is primarily used for the delivery of in-person health care services to people. “Healthcare setting” includes portions of a multi-use facility, but only the areas that are primarily used for the delivery of health care, such as a pharmacy within a grocery store. Additional information is on the state’s Q&A page.
    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

    Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

    September 06, 2021 —
    At the end of July 2021, a bill was introduced in the House and Senate, which, if enacted, would create a federal tax credit to fund the conversion of unused office buildings into residential, commercial, or mixed-use properties. The Revitalizing Downtowns Act (S. 2511), which is modeled after the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit, would provide a federal tax credit equal to 20 percent of “qualified conversion expenditures” with respect to a “qualified converted building.” A “qualified converted building” means any building that (i) was nonresidential real property for lease to office tenants, (ii) has been “substantially converted” from an office use to a residential, retail, or other commercial use, (iii) in the case of conversion to residential units, is subject to a state or local affordable housing agreement or has at least 20 percent of the units rent restricted and set aside for tenants whose income is 80 percent or less of area median gross income, (iv) was initially placed in service at least 25 years before the beginning of conversion, and (v) may be depreciated or amortized. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy

    June 07, 2021 —
    When sued for construction defects caused by the subcontractor, the general contractor was granted summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the subcontractor's policy. Meritage Homes of Ga. v. Grange Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84591 (N.D. Ga. March 23, 2021). Meritage built a home for the owners. Easterwood Excavating, Inc. was the subcontractor for excavation and grading work. Meritage was named an additional insured under Easterwood's policy with Grange. After construction was completed, the owners were experiencing severe flooding after rain storms purportedly due to defects in the grading, site preparation and excavation. The owners filed an arbitration against Meritage for damages. The owners alleged that Meritage improperly excavated and graded their lot, causing water to collect and pool in their yard. Meritage denied all liability and looked to Easterwood and Grange for defense and indemnification. Grange denied coverage, contending there was no occurrence which resulted in property damage. The arbitrator found that the folding of water was caused by Meritage's improper grading of the lot. A Final Award in the amount of $129,530.93 was issued against Meritage. 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

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    June 21, 2021 —
    Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. 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