BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home expert witness Slocomb Alabama retail construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama condominium expert witness Slocomb Alabama townhome construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama Medical building expert witness Slocomb Alabama condominiums expert witness Slocomb Alabama multi family housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama industrial building expert witness Slocomb Alabama production housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Slocomb Alabama high-rise construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama low-income housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama institutional building expert witness Slocomb Alabama tract home expert witness Slocomb Alabama hospital construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama landscaping construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama custom homes expert witness Slocomb Alabama office building expert witness Slocomb Alabama concrete tilt-up expert witness Slocomb Alabama parking structure expert witness Slocomb Alabama
    Slocomb Alabama OSHA expert witness constructionSlocomb Alabama concrete expert witnessSlocomb Alabama construction expert witness public projectsSlocomb Alabama architectural engineering expert witnessSlocomb Alabama civil engineering expert witnessSlocomb Alabama construction defect expert witnessSlocomb Alabama construction safety expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Slocomb, 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 Slocomb Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Dothan & Wiregrass Area
    Local # 0132
    PO Box 9791
    Dothan, AL 36304
    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Enterprise Home Builders Association
    Local # 0133
    PO Box 310861
    Enterprise, AL 36331
    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Metro Mobile Inc
    Local # 0156
    1613 University Blvd S
    Mobile, AL 36609

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Baldwin County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0184
    916 PLantation Blvd
    Fairhope, AL 36532

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    South Alabama Home Builders Association
    Local # 0102
    PO Box 190
    Greenville, AL 36037
    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alabama
    Local # 0100
    PO Box 241305
    Montgomery, AL 36124

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Slocomb Alabama


    Building Inspector Jailed for Taking Bribes

    Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

    Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    The ALI Restatement – What Lies Ahead?

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    Digital Twins for a Safer Built Environment

    Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do

    MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

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

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Awarded Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Tishman Construction Admits Cheating Trade Center Clients

    Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number
    Corporate Profile

    SLOCOMB ALABAMA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    December 02, 2019 —
    With its term now under way, the U.S. Supreme Court could change federal laws with industry impact—from where huge pipelines can be built and new regulation of pollution in groundwater to whether LGBTQ workers have anti-bias rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense

    August 13, 2019 —
    Do costs associated with complying with an injunction constitute covered “damages?” The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota recently certified that question to the South Dakota Supreme Court, in Sapienza v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 3:18-CV-03015-RAL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84973 (D.S.D. May 17, 2019). If the South Dakota Supreme Court takes on the question, it will become one of the few highest state courts to do so.[1] The Sapienza case is also notable because the court adopted § 12 of the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance (Restatement) regarding an insurer’s potential liability for providing an “inadequate” defense. In doing so, the Sapienza court joins a growing list of courts to rely upon or cite to the Restatement. The Sapienza case arose out of an underlying dispute between residential neighbors over the size and location of the Sapienzas’ new house they built in a historic district in Sioux Falls, SD. The newly-built house allegedly prevented the neighbors from using their fireplace, blocked natural light the neighbors previously enjoyed, and decreased the value of the neighbors’ house. The neighbors sought a permanent injunction requiring the Sapienzas to modify or relocate the house. The Sapienzas’ homeowners’ insurer provided them with defense counsel, but the insurer instructed the Sapienzas that it would not cover any costs associated with an injunction as such costs did not constitute covered “damages.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Anderson may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

    December 09, 2019 —
    On numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context). One such exception (that I frankly would have thought to be obvious) is that such clauses do not protect a general contractor from paying all subcontractors. Such a clause only protects a general contractor from payment to those subs for whose work the general contractor has not been paid. In other words, if a general contractor has been paid by an owner for a particular subcontractors work, it cannot use the pay if paid clause to deny payment even in the event that other subcontractors were deficient in their work or the owner has failed to pay the general contractor in full. In Precision Contractors Inc. v. Masterbuilt Companies Inc. (PDF) the Fairfax, VA Circuit Court reiterated this principal stating that nothing in the contract suggests that either party to the lawsuit had any intention to shift the risk of non-payment by the owner or non-performance of other subcontractors to the plaintiff (Precision). 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

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead

    November 12, 2019 —
    Vistage’s recent survey captured responses from 1,463 CEOs of small and mid-sized businesses in a variety of industries across the United States. Included in this national data is 224 responses from CEOs in the construction industry, a reliable base for comparing the sentiment of CEOs in construction to the national base. Each quarter, the survey captures:
    • CEO sentiment on the current and future state of the national economy;
    • Expectations for revenue and profitability; and
    • Expansion plans, specifically hiring and investments.
    CONSTRUCTION CEOS ARE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE When asked about revenue expectations, 65% of CEOs in construction reported projections for increased revenues in the coming year, which is on par with the national results. Additionally, 61% expect their profitability to improve over the next 12 months, notably higher than the national figure of 54%. Reprinted courtesy of Joe Galvin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    November 12, 2019 —
    On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

    August 13, 2019 —
    In a new report on London’s Crossrail, the U.K. National Audit Office says the beleaguered transportation project is around two years late and nearly 20% over budget because of poor management. The NAO, charged by Parliament with monitoring public spending, pointed to ill-conceived “aspirational” plans that proved to be unfit for the technologically challenging and vast program when things went wrong. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    August 13, 2019 —
    The word fraud might conjure up images of Wall Street executives led out to police cars in cuffs, or sleazy conmen with slicked-back hair. While these ideas might be popular in movies and TV, and often in the news, many small and large businesses fall victim to fraud. Whether it’s a trusted site manager who needed a little extra cash to cover an unexpected bill or the accountant who’s been on board for years and has been slowly siphoning an extra paycheck through a ghost employee each month, fraud might be hitting businesses without them even knowing it. The construction industry is hardly immune to such schemes. According to the ACFE’s 2018 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, organizations lose an estimated 5% of their revenue each year to fraud. The median amount lost per instance of fraud was $130,000 across all industries, but fraud cases in the construction industry cost almost twice that much at $227,000 per fraud. They also last longer on average: fraud schemes in the construction industry continue for 24 months before being detected versus the overall median average of 16 months. The more time a scheme continues, the more money is lost for organizations. What types of fraud schemes are most common in the construction industry? The construction industry is more susceptible to certain types of fraud than other industries due to the nature of the work. The companies may be smaller in size leading to fewer resources to combat fraud and more trust among employees. Also, construction companies inherently deal with many vendors, subcontractors, bidding organizations and other various third parties, which can all pose fraud risks. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Hofmann, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

    December 30, 2019 —
    Newmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, is pleased to announce that, on November 18, 2019, the City Council of the City of Piedmont unanimously voted to approve the installation of 17 small cell wireless telecommunications sites by Newmeyer Dillion client Crown Castle NG West LLC, the leading provider of shared communications infrastructure in the United States. This victory ends a long-running legal dispute over Crown Castle's small cell wireless network, which was vehemently opposed by Piedmont residents and previously rejected by the City Council, prompting Newmeyer Dillion to bring a lawsuit against the city in 2017. The dispute began in 2016 when Crown Castle filed an application with the City Council of the City of Piedmont to build nine small cell wireless sites designed to provide critical wireless telecommunications coverage in Piedmont. In October 2017, the Council denied the network, rejecting some of the proposed sites or approving others with onerous conditions. Newmeyer Dillion's Government, Land Use and Environmental practice group filed a lawsuit on behalf of Crown Castle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2017, challenging the Council's decision. Drawing from the language established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the lawsuit alleged that Piedmont's ordinances established an unreasonably high bar of approval, unlawfully prohibiting telecommunications services in the city. The city quickly requested a court-supervised settlement, which was approved by the City Council in December 2018 and allowed Crown Castle to reapply to build 17 small cell wireless telecommunications facilities. The unanimous City Council approval came after extensive mediation work between the two parties. "We are excited that our years-long efforts have culminated in this major win for Crown Castle, allowing them to build out critical telecommunications infrastructure in the City of Piedmont," said Michael Shonafelt, partner at Newmeyer Dillion. "With the growing national need for robust telecommunications networks that can handle voice communication and modern data demands, approvals such as this are significant, not just for the community the network serves, but for the viability of the national telecommunications network as a whole. Our team is proud to be using our multidisciplinary, business-oriented approach to successfully advise clients navigating these issues." About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. 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 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