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

    Montana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 389; Code Section 70-19-427 requires homeowners to provide notice of an alleged construction defect before filing a lawsuit. The contractor has the option to offer to inspect the defect, repair the defect, offer a settlement or dispute the claim. After being served with written notice, the contractor has 21 days to respond: offer to inspect the defect, repair the defect, offer a settlement or dispute the claim.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Boulder Montana

    Businesses must register with the Secretary of State. No state license is required for general contracting. Licensure is required for plumbing, electrical, and crane operating trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Bitterroot Building Industry Association
    Local # 2729
    PO Box 1299
    Hamilton, MT 59840
    http://wwwbbiamontana.org

    Rocky Mountain Chapter
    Local # 2750
    PO Box 154
    Anaconda, MT 59711


    Montana Home Builders Association
    Local # 2700
    1717 11th Ave
    Helena, MT 59601
    http://www.montanabia.com

    Home Builders Association of Billings
    Local # 2722
    PO Box 875
    Billings, MT 59103
    http://www.hbabillings.net

    Helena Building Industry Association
    Local # 2766
    3180 Dredge Dr Ste B
    Helena, MT 59602
    http://www.helenabia.com

    SW Montana Building Industry Association
    Local # 2755
    1716 W Main St Ste 8 G
    Bozeman, MT 59715
    http://www.swmbia.org

    Missoula Building Industry Association
    Local # 2788
    1840 S Ave W
    Missoula, MT 59801
    http://www.buildmissoula.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Boulder Montana

    Todd Ehrenreich Joins International Academy of Trial Lawyers

    Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Defining Constructive Acceleration

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    PSA: Pay If Paid Ban Goes into Effect on January 1, 2023

    Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    SCOTUS to Weigh Landowners' Damage Claim Against Texas DOT

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Justyn Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment

    Agile Project Management in the Construction Industry

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Government Claiming Contract Is Void Ab Initio by Contractor Knowingly Making False Statements

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    Substitutions On a Construction Project — A Specification Writer Responds

    Why the Renovation of Federal Reserve Headquarters Costs $2.5 Billion

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict

    NY Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment to Landlord in Tenant’s Lawsuit Alleging Catastrophic Injuries

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    Avoid Drowning in Data: Keep Afloat with ESI in Construction Litigation

    White and Williams Recognizes Women’s History Month: Remembering Virginia Barton Wallace

    Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

    Appraisal Goes Forward Even Though Insurer Has Yet to Determine Coverage on Additional Claims

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    Thinking About a Daubert Motion to Challenge an Expert Opinion?

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Illinois Court Addresses Level of Evidence Necessary to Prevent Summary Judgment in Hail Damage Claim

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Personal Injury Claims – The Basics

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    IEEPA Tariff Refunds: CBP Launches CAPE Process

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company
    Corporate Profile

    BOULDER MONTANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through more than four thousand construction related expert witness designations, the Boulder, Montana Construction Expert Directory provides a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides building related trial support and expert consulting services to widely recognized construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. In connection with in house assets comprising construction standard of care consultants, registered architects, professional engineers, and credentialed building envelope experts, the firm brings specialized expertise and local capabilities to the Boulder region.

    Boulder Montana roofing construction expertBoulder Montana construction cost estimating expert witnessBoulder Montana delay claim expert witnessBoulder Montana architecture expert witnessBoulder Montana reconstruction expert witnessBoulder Montana building code expert witnessBoulder Montana construction code expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Boulder, Montana

    Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move

    April 27, 2026 —
    The explosive growth of data‑center load—driven by artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the expansion of digital infrastructure across industries—has forced U.S. energy regulators into unfamiliar territory. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is actively considering how large, concentrated loads can be powered without compromising grid reliability or shifting costs to other customers. FERC has not yet issued a standalone rulemaking on data centers. But make no mistake, the regulatory framework is quietly and deliberately being built. For developers, hyperscalers, utilities and investors, the period before FERC finalizes its next round of decisions represents the critical window to crystallize advocacy and structure transactions in ways that anticipate regulatory change. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Andrew H. Jacobs, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at andrew.jacobs@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    How Mobile Tools Are Capturing Safety Data on Jobsites

    April 08, 2026 —
    Traditionally, construction safety management is “reactive compliance”—reporting on an incident, filling out a form on paper or electronically, taking a picture and filing it away for compliance purposes. Safety management is shifting from reactive to proactive. Forward-thinking companies are using data and leading indicators to identify risks before incidents happen, not just document injuries after the fact. Mobile tools have completely changed the way safety operations work on construction sites, enabling that transition to proactive safety management. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bruns, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

    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...

    Settlement Agreements and Contracts Require a Meeting of the Minds

    July 20, 2026 —
    A settlement agreement does not need to be executed for it to be enforceable as long as there was a MEETING OF THE MINDS. The same rings true for any contract regardless of whether the contract is signed – THERE NEEDS TO BE A MEETING OF THE MINDS. In a recent case dealing with the settlement agreement on a construction lien, the essential settlement terms (money and mutual release) were memorialized in an e-mail exchange between the parties (owner and subcontractor). The settlement required the owner to pay the principal amount plus some attorney’s fees and then a mutual general release would be prepared. In response to the confirmatory email, the owner sent a check, which the subcontractor deposited, but the owner refused to sign the release signed and sent by the subcontractor. The owner further claimed it doesn’t need to pay the attorney’s fees because the lien amount was paid in full. The subcontractor sued arguing the owner breached the terms of the settlement. The appellate court agreed. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Thomson Reuters Construction Law (Virginia Practice Series)

    March 31, 2026 —
    P&A Partners Michael A. Branca and Jennifer L. Harris have authored the most recent edition (2025) of Construction Law (Virginia Practice Series), part of Thomson Reuters’ ProView legal reference library. Associate Julia Loudenburg also provided substantial assistance for this edition. Construction Law includes summaries and analysis of statutes, regulations, and cases. It covers all major legal issues, including:
    • Licensing
    • Building code compliance
    • Public-private partnerships
    • Public contract bidding and performance
    • Dispute resolution
    • Damages
    • Third-party liability
    • Liens and bonds
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer L. Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Michael A. Branca, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Mr. Branca may be contacted at mbranca@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

    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...

    Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor

    May 14, 2026 —
    The Fourth Circuit in APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 24-1969, 2026 WL 458402 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) recently endorsed broad coverage for additional insureds, interpreting “arising out of” broadly under North Carolina law to extend coverage to a repaving company under its subcontractor’s liability insurance policy. The court held that an additional insured’s liability “arising out of” a named insured’s work in an additional-insured endorsement means liability “relating to” or “causally connected to” the named insured’s operations, rather than liability defined more narrowly as “caused by” or “the fault of” the named insured. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

    April 14, 2026 —
    A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
    A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
    “The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
    “[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
    Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com