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

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Gtr Terre Haute
    Local # 1582
    2747 Sidenbender Rd
    Terre Haute, IN 47802
    http://www.hbaterrehaute.com

    Southeastern Indiana chapter
    Local # 1536
    394 W County Road 400 N
    Greensburg, IN 47240


    Madison County Chapter
    Local # 1504
    853 E. Southern Avenue
    Indianapolis, IN 46203


    Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis
    Local # 1544
    PO Box 44670
    Indianapolis, IN 46244
    http://www.bagi.com

    Indiana Builders Association
    Local # 1500
    101 W Ohio St Ste 1111
    Indianapolis, IN 46204
    http://www.buildindiana.org

    Jackson-Jennings Builders Association
    Local # 1574
    11990 W Mt Healthy Rd
    Columbus, IN 47201
    http://www.jjba.org

    Wayne County Builders Association
    Local # 1570
    PO Box 1591
    Richmond, IN 47375
    http://www.wcbaonline.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Seelyville Indiana

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative

    Second Month of US Construction Spending Down

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Navigating Construction Defect Claims and Statutes of Limitation: Key Lessons from Stoecklein v. Fayette Farms

    Edison Has Miles of Idle Power Lines in High Fire Risk Zones

    White and Williams LLP is Honored to be Recognized Among the 2026 Best Law Firms Ranked by Best Lawyers®

    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    Hilti Partners with Canvas, a Construction Robotics Company

    Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues

    Goldberg Segalla Welcomes William L. Nimick

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    Construction Costs Up

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Fifth Circuit Requires Causal Distinction for Ensuing Loss Exception to Faulty Work Exclusion

    What Happens When Dave Chappelle Buys Up Your Town

    The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

    A Claim for Constructive Suspension Does Exist

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    Newark Trial Team Defends “No Cause” With Appellate Affirmance Of 2023 Jury Verdict

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    “Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    What is a Civil Dispute?

    Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears
    Corporate Profile

    SEELYVILLE INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    With over 4500 construction, architectural, and engineering related expert designations, the Seelyville, Indiana Construction Expert Directory offers a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to developers, risk managers, and construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides building claims investigation and expert services to the building industry's most recognized companies, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, risk managers, and a variety of municipalities. In connection with in house assets which include licensed architects, civil engineers, building envelope experts, general and specialty contractors focused on the evaluation of construction claims, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Seelyville region.

    Seelyville Indiana architect expert witnessSeelyville Indiana construction expert witnessesSeelyville Indiana construction expert testimonySeelyville Indiana structural concrete expertSeelyville Indiana architectural engineering expert witnessSeelyville Indiana construction scheduling expert witnessSeelyville Indiana ada design expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Seelyville, Indiana

    Daily Journal Publishes Article by Brenda Radmacher on Proposed Overhaul of California Construction Defect Law

    June 29, 2026 —
    Daily Journal (California) featured an article by Construction Law partner Brenda Radmacher, “A new path for construction defects in California.” The piece, published on June 15, 2026, examines Assembly Bill 1903 and its potential to significantly reshape California’s construction defect framework, particularly for common interest properties. The article highlights how AB 1903 would overhaul the state’s current right-to-repair system by mandating completion of prelitigation procedures, raising requirements for defect claims, strengthening developers’/builders’ rights to repair, and introducing a voluntary “certified building” program. The legislation aims to rebalance competing interests by reducing litigation-driven costs while preserving protections for homeowners. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
    Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@seyfarth.com

    Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

    July 06, 2026 —
    It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Seattle’s Residential Zoning Transformation: What Property Owners, Buyers, and Investors Should Understand

    May 14, 2026 —
    Seattle is in the midst of a significant transformation in residential land use policy. Longstanding neighborhood zoning patterns that historically favored detached single-family development are being reexamined in response to housing supply pressures, affordability concerns, and evolving state mandates. For homeowners, purchasers, investors, and builders, these changes may create substantial new opportunities. They also create a heightened need for careful legal and practical due diligence. While zoning reform can expand potential uses of property, it does not eliminate the many other constraints that may still govern what can actually be built. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Glosser may be contacted at larry.glosser@acslawyers.com

    Legal 500 US Ranks Hunton’s Insurance Coverage Team Among Top Policyholder Practices in 2026 Guide

    July 06, 2026 —
    Hunton’s insurance coverage practice was once again recognized among the nation’s top policyholder insurance practices, receiving a Band 2 national ranking in the 2026 United States Edition of The Legal 500 for Insurance: Advice to Policyholders. The Legal 500 recognizes firms solely based on merit through numerous factors including client feedback and peer input. Bolstering the team’s national recognition, several coverage lawyers received individual accolades: special counsel Lorelie “Lorie” S. Masters was named to The Legal 500’s Hall of Fame; team head Syed S. Ahmad and partner Michael S. Levine were named Leading Lawyers; and partners Andrea DeField and Latosha M. Ellis were named Next Generation Partners. In addition, partners Walter J. Andrews, Lawrence J. Bracken II, and Koorosh “KT” Talieh were recognized as Key Lawyers on the team. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    Tony Sonnett Secures Highly Favorable Verdict for Client in Admitted Liability Case in Which Plaintiff Sought $34.5M

    September 29, 2026 —
    Los Angeles Partner Tony Sonnett recently obtained a highly favorable verdict for his property owner client in an admitted liability case in which the plaintiff had asked for $34.5 million, with a jury awarding just $75,000. The plaintiff, who was a tenant at one of the client’s rental properties, was injured in October 2020 as he was attempting to close the heavy metal blinds that were affixed to the 12-foot floor-to-ceiling windows of the property. The blinds and their heavy metal covering detached from the wall and fell on the plaintiff’s head, causing him to suffer a scalp laceration that required stitches. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    RONI: What You Lose by Not Investing in AI – With Sam Zolfagharian

    September 21, 2026 —
    Sam Zolfagharian returns to the AEC Business Podcast for her second appearance. She is an AI strategist, keynote speaker, and the author of two books, Disrupt It and Future by Design. She spoke at the AI in AEC conference in Helsinki in March, and we picked up the conversation where that keynote left off. The starting point was a question her clients keep raising. Executives are being asked by their boards about the return on their AI investments, and many of them do not have an answer they trust. This episode is about what to measure instead, and when the dollar figure finally becomes the right number to look at. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements

    June 29, 2026 —
    A Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026) OVERVIEW The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law). KEY HOLDINGS 1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session. Reprinted courtesy of Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer, Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com Read the full story...

    Utah’s Emerging Framework for Responsible Data Center Development

    September 08, 2026 —
    Utah is establishing itself as one of the nation’s most attractive jurisdictions for large-scale data center development, with a structured, defensible regulatory pathway that gives developers and investors the clarity needed to deploy capital at scale. The cornerstone is Executive Order 2026-03, “Establishing a Higher Bar for Data Center Development in Utah,” signed by Governor Spencer J. Cox on May 29, 2026. The Executive Order creates an actionable compliance framework letting developers demonstrate stewardship across water, air quality, energy, wildlife, and community engagement – reducing regulatory and reputational risk. Recent enactments on energy self-supply and water rights operationalize these principles, while a few counties have adopted short-term local moratoria to update zoning; understanding how these interact with the state framework matters for site selection. Reprinted courtesy of Denise A. Dragoo, Snell & Wilmer and Josh Miller, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Dragoo may be contacted at ddragoo@swlaw.com Mr. Miller may be contacted at jmiller@swlaw.com Read the full story...