BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home expert witness Austin Indiana custom homes expert witness Austin Indiana production housing expert witness Austin Indiana condominiums expert witness Austin Indiana townhome construction expert witness Austin Indiana tract home expert witness Austin Indiana low-income housing expert witness Austin Indiana retail construction expert witness Austin Indiana high-rise construction expert witness Austin Indiana hospital construction expert witness Austin Indiana industrial building expert witness Austin Indiana structural steel construction expert witness Austin Indiana landscaping construction expert witness Austin Indiana Medical building expert witness Austin Indiana concrete tilt-up expert witness Austin Indiana casino resort expert witness Austin Indiana condominium expert witness Austin Indiana office building expert witness Austin Indiana housing expert witness Austin Indiana mid-rise construction expert witness Austin Indiana parking structure expert witness Austin Indiana Subterranean parking expert witness Austin Indiana
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Austin, Indiana

    Indiana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: According to SB45160, §IC 32-27-3-1&2 a claimant must provide written notice 60 days before filing an action. Within 21 days after service of the notice, the construction professional must serve a written response. Claimant must file list of known construction defects, description, and the construction professional responsible for each alleged defect (to the extent known).


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Austin Indiana

    License required for plumbing. All other licensing is done at the local county level.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    River Valley Chapter of National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 1576
    PO Box 365
    Hanover, IN 47243


    Lawrence County Chapter
    Local # 1535
    201 Main Street c/o Hoosier Door
    Oolitic, IN 47451


    Vincennes Area Chapter
    Local # 1563
    PO Box 531
    Vincennes, IN 47591


    Dearborn Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 1522
    PO Box 21
    Aurora, IN 47001


    Monroe County Building Association
    Local # 1508
    3901 E Hagan St Ste H
    Bloomington, IN 47401
    http://www.mcbaindiana.org

    Builders Association of Dubois County
    Local # 1511
    1813 S A St
    Jasper, IN 47546
    http://www.dcbuilder.org

    Gibson Co Chapter
    Local # 1530
    PO Box 386
    Princeton, IN 47670



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Austin Indiana

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

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

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Lack of Credibility Can Destroy a Claim

    How the California and Maui Wildfires Will Affect Future Construction Projects

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    Wilke Fleury ranked in Best Lawyers’ Best Law Firms!!

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Annual Forum Meeting in New Orleans

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    Consumer Prices Rising as U.S. Housing Stabilizes: Economy

    Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    Second Circuit Revives Policyholder’s Negligence Claim Against Agent

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower

    Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Insured’s Motion to Compel Production of Underwriting Materials Granted

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    WATCH: 2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    Building in Arizona’s Data Center Boom: How Federal Executive Orders, State Regulation, and National-Security Policy Are Reshaping the Rules for Developers

    Pulling Off the Band-Aid

    Microscopic Soot, Major Win: Policyholder Coverage Expands

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Paola Perkins Secures Summary Judgment for Client in Slip and Fall Lawsuit

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    Four Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2027 Southern California Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars Lists

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects
    Corporate Profile

    AUSTIN INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 4500 construction and design related expert witness designations, the Austin, Indiana Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to attorneys and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the industry's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, real estate investment trusts, risk managers, owners, as well as a variety of municipalities and government offices. In connection with in house assets which include testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, licensed general and specialty contractors, the construction experts group brings specialized experience and local capabilities to Austin and the surrounding areas.

    Austin Indiana defective construction expertAustin Indiana structural concrete expertAustin Indiana expert witness roofingAustin Indiana expert witness windowsAustin Indiana building code expert witnessAustin Indiana OSHA expert witness constructionAustin Indiana forensic architect
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Austin, Indiana

    Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation

    May 14, 2026 —
    If you are entertaining a differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s. In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    GRSM Defeats Class Certification in Precedent-Setting HOA Management Case

    September 15, 2026 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners Fletcher Alford and Kevin Liu and Associate Jigar Desai secured a favorable outcome on behalf of an HOA management company in a precedent-setting class action before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, obtaining denial of the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and dismissal without prejudice of the three claims at issue. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant received earnings credit payments from a bank in exchange for maintaining HOA deposit accounts and failed to disclose the arrangement to its HOA clients. The plaintiff sought more than $40 million in damages, asserting five claims: (1) breach of contract for failing to act in class members’ best interests by not disclosing the alleged earnings credit arrangement; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on alleged violations of California Civil Code §§ 5375, 5375.5, and 5380; (3) breach of fiduciary duty based on the alleged undisclosed arrangement; (4) violation of the UCL for unfair business practices arising from the alleged nondisclosure; and (5) unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) only as to its second, third, and fourth causes of action. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Insureds’ Altering Dates for Hailstorm Damage Justifies Denial of Claim

    June 02, 2026 —
    The Firth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer due to the insureds’ failure to establish the date of loss after a hailstorm. Cutchall v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2026 WL 625633 (5th Cir. March 5, 2026). In September 2021, the Cutchalls made a claim on their policy for interior water damage due to a hailstorm that breached their roof. Chubb retained two engineers to inspect the home, but neither found evidence that a hailstorm caused the damage. Instead, the engineers concluded a variety of other causes, such as poor ventilation and as-built defects, caused the damage. Because Chubb concluded that some of these other causes were covered by the policy, it paid only for the covered portions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Federal Court Highlights the Strategic Value of Additional Insured Coverage

    June 22, 2026 —
    A recent decision from the District of Maryland underscores a recurring—but often underutilized—opportunity for policyholders: securing and enforcing additional insured coverage under another party’s liability policy. In Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Builders Premier Insurance Co., the court held that an equipment lessor qualified as an additional insured under the lessee’s policy and was entitled to a primary defense. The decision is a useful reminder that additional insured coverage can fundamentally shift defense obligations and materially reduce a policyholder’s exposure. We build on the decision to highlight the practical steps policyholders should take to ensure that all potentially available insurance is identified and pursued. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com

    LA Scores Major Victory in a High-Exposure Premises Liability Action

    July 06, 2026 —
    Our firm is proud to announce a decisive defense victory obtained by Partner Daniel Crespo and Associate Lauren Landau for our client in a high-exposure premises liability action arising from a 2022 incident at an active school construction site in Perris, California. On March 10, 2026, the Riverside County Superior Court granted Summary Judgment in full for our client, dismissing all claims brought by Plaintiff, who alleged she tripped and fell over a curb while picking up her daughter from school and sustained ankle and wrist injuries as a result. Through meticulous preparation and the strategic use of construction plans, contractual documents, and onsite surveillance video evidence, our team demonstrated that our client had no ownership, possession, or control over the portion of the existing sidewalk where the incident occurred, with construction plans unambiguously designating the area as pre-existing concrete outside our client’s scope of work, and the Construction Services Agreement expressly reserving control over all existing site improvements to the school district. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Parties’ Post-Default Conduct Cannot Validate Void Default Orders

    August 24, 2026 —
    After filing a lawsuit, the first step is always serving process on the opposing party. While that preliminary step sounds basic enough, in McMahan v. Grasshopper, the Arizona Supreme Court recently provided a helpful refresher on the nuances of the service requirement and its importance in litigation for plaintiffs and defendants alike.1 Background McMahan arose from a hit-and-run where a tractor-trailer collided with safety barricades and injured a construction worker. The construction worker sued the tractor-trailer company, and he attempted to serve the company by leaving a copy of the complaint with the assistant to the company’s statutory agent who forwarded the complaint to the company. The assistant, however, was not authorized to accept service on the company’s behalf. Before the company appeared in the action, the construction worker successfully obtained an entry of default. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Kanefield, Snell & Wilmer, Ryan P. Hogan, Snell & Wilmer and Lilly M. Geiler, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Kanefield may be contacted at jkanefield@swlaw.com Mr. Hogan may be contacted at rhogan@swlaw.com Ms. Geiler may be contacted at lgeiler@swlaw.com Read the full story...

    ACEC Research Institute Report: Real Risk of AI Isn’t Technology. It’s the Org Chart.

    September 01, 2026 —
    WASHINGTON (August 19, 2026) – The ACEC Research Institute today released Leading Through AI Risk: The Enterprise Framework for Engineering Firm Leaders, a new study finding that the most significant risks artificial intelligence poses to engineering firms are organizational rather than technological, and that firms treating AI as an IT initiative are managing the wrong issue. The report, part of the Institute’s yearslong Firm of the Future initiative, combines an extensive literature review with in-depth interviews of 21 leaders drawn from engineering firms, public infrastructure owners, technology vendors, insurance and legal professionals, licensing and regulatory agencies, and AI consultants. The report groups AI risk into eight interconnected domains:
    • technical reliability and model risk
    • professional liability and standard of care risk
    • data governance, privacy, and intellectual property risk
    • organizational and workforce risk
    • ethical, regulatory, and reputational risk
    • operational and cybersecurity risk
    • financial and business model risk
    • strategic leadership and enterprise governance risk
    The last serves as the integrating domain through which firms coordinate responsible AI adoption enterprise wide. The report stresses that firms do not experience these risks one at a time. Weak oversight may create legal liability. Workforce gaps may affect quality assurance. “Understanding these interactions,” the study notes, “is often more important than understanding individual risks independently.” About the ACEC Research Institute The ACEC Research Institute is the independent research arm of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Its mission is to fund and deliver research to equip the engineering industry with actionable intelligence on the issues critical to its success. Learn more at www.acecresearchinstitute.org.

    2026 Top Business Risks for Construction and Engineering Companies

    May 26, 2026 —
    The 2026 Allianz Risk Barometer revealed some surprising findings for construction and engineering businesses. Now in its fifteenth year, this annual business risk ranking by corporate insurer Allianz Commercial incorporates the views of 3,338 global risk management professionals on the main perils on their radar for the year. Survey respondents included construction and engineering risk experts who identified the threats keeping them up at night. Here is how they ranked the top industry risks for 2026: Natural Catastrophes Natural catastrophe risk retains the top spot, with 38% of construction and engineering respondents citing this risk as their leading concern for 2026. From the insurance perspective, economic and insured losses remained high, albeit lower than the 10-year average. The evolving nature of natural catastrophes continues to pose significant challenges to businesses and the (re)insurance industry. Insured losses from natural catastrophes are set to reach $107 billion for 2025, according to Swiss Re—the sixth year in a row they have exceeded $100 billion, while economic losses are well in excess of $200 billion. Reprinted courtesy of Darren Tasker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...