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

    North Dakota Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (HB1437) Notice required six months prior to undertaking any repair other than emergency repair, or instituting action for breach of warranty of one or two-family dwelling; response time 30 days.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Divide County North Dakota

    A contractor's license is required for all jobs over $2,000.00. Separate boards license plumbing and electrical trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Minot Association of Bldrs
    Local # 3565
    PO Box 1851
    Minot, ND 58702
    http://www.minotab.com

    Williston Area Builders Association
    Local # 3520
    PO Box 1825
    Williston, ND 58802


    Forx Builders Association
    Local # 3515
    519 DeMers Ave
    Grand Forks, ND 58201
    http://www.forxbuilders.com

    North Dakota AB
    Local # 3500
    1720 Burnt Boat Dr Ste 207
    Bismarck, ND 58503
    http://www.ndbuild.com

    Bismarck-Mandan Home Builders Association
    Local # 3510
    2600 Gateway Ave Ste 1
    Bismarck, ND 58503
    http://www.bmhba.com

    Dickinson Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 3512
    PO Box 1697
    Dickinson, ND 58602


    Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead
    Local # 3545
    1802 32nd Ave S
    Fargo, ND 58103
    http://www.hbafm.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Divide County North Dakota

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    Will Future Megacities Be a Marvel or a Mess? Look at New Delhi

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Under New York Law a Recourse Provision Bars Most Claims Except for Fraud

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    Utah Digs Deep and Finds “Design Defect” Includes Pre-Construction Geotechnical Reports

    Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle

    Congratulations to Reno Partner Karen Baytosh for Securing a Complete Dismissal via a Motion for Summary Judgment

    More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Quick Note: Don’t Spoil Evidence!!!!

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Award of Attorneys’ Fees Although Defended by Principal

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    Insurer Has No Obligation to Cover Arbitration Award in Construction Defect Case

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Insured’s Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    The Salt Lake Tribune Names Snell & Wilmer a Winner of the Top Workplaces 2025 Award

    Connecticut Expands Construction Wage-Theft Liability and Prevailing Wage Recordkeeping Requirements

    Cliff White Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    STV and Tutor Perini/Parsons Arbitrate Unusual Dispute Over Seven $1M Deductibles

    Presidential Executive Order 14008: The Climate Crisis Order

    Mortgage Company Fails to Prove Loss or Entitlement to Damages, Eliminating Recovery

    Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    The Texas Storm – Guidance for Contractors

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home
    Corporate Profile

    DIVIDE COUNTY NORTH DAKOTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately 5000 construction, architectural, and engineering related expert designations, the Divide County, North Dakota Construction Expert Directory provides a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to developers, risk managers, and construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides building related consulting and expert witness support services to the nation'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. Employing in house assets which include testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, the firm brings regional experience and local capabilities to Divide County and the surrounding areas.

    Divide County North Dakota consulting general contractorDivide County North Dakota slope failure expert witnessDivide County North Dakota contractor expert witnessDivide County North Dakota construction defect expert witnessDivide County North Dakota concrete expert witnessDivide County North Dakota window expert witnessDivide County North Dakota building code expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Divide County, North Dakota

    Ball Janik LLP Welcomes Construction Defect Attorney and U.S. Air Force Veteran Jake Scott to its Fort Lauderdale Office

    June 02, 2026 —
    Ball Janik LLP, a leading construction defect and insurance recovery law firm, has welcomed Jake Scott as an associate in its Fort Lauderdale office. Scott joins the Construction Defect Practice Group, bringing experience across construction litigation that includes construction defect, contract dispute, and negligence matters, along with a track record of representing construction professionals through depositions, court appearances, and trial preparation to support the firm's steady growth and client service statewide. "We're excited to welcome Jake Scott to our Fort Lauderdale office and Construction Defect Practice Group," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner at Ball Janik LLP. "We look forward to the fresh perspectives and legal solutions he will provide for community associations across South Florida." Scott is a results-driven attorney dedicated to providing strategic counsel for complex legal challenges. He has experience managing all phases of a case, from early investigation and discovery through trial preparation and settlement negotiations. Prior to joining Ball Janik, Scott served as an associate attorney in Fort Lauderdale, where he represented clients in construction litigation matters, handled depositions and court appearances, conducted legal research, and drafted pleadings, motions, and briefs. He also worked as an attorney in Tampa, where he represented contractors, subcontractors, and construction firms in defending claims involving construction defects, contractual disputes, and negligence, and worked closely with expert witnesses, engineers, and consultants to develop and present technical evidence. Scott's experience representing the development and building sides of construction disputes provides a valuable, contrast-driven perspective that supports the strategic evaluation of claims and practical approaches to resolution for Ball Janik's clients. A proud veteran, Scott served in the United States Air Force for eight years, including roles as an Airspace Control Officer and in Space Systems Operations, supporting safe space flight operations and satellite communications. Carrying the discipline of airborne operations, Scott worked in the aerospace sector as a Satellite Engineer and Orbital Analyst. He also held a role in the housing sector, supporting marketing and business development initiatives. Scott received his law degree from Stetson University College of Law. He attended American Military University, where he earned degrees in marketing, business management, and related support services. About Ball Janik LLP Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com.

    Navigating Timelines and Technology: Patent Strategies for Space and Earth

    June 01, 2026 —
    More than half a century after the Apollo 11 landing fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s bold vision, the global race back to the Moon is no longer theoretical. With renewed attention on NASA’s Artemis program and a surge of commercial investment in space infrastructure, lunar exploration is again shaping technology priorities here on Earth. Reprinted courtesy of Kate Nuehring Su, Engineering News-Record and Vanessa Wang, Engineering News-Record Read the full story...
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

    The GKN Aerospace Chemical Release and the Laws Designed to Address It

    July 06, 2026 —
    On May 21, 2026, a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove, California began leaking methyl methacrylate (MMA), a volatile and highly flammable industrial chemical used to manufacture high-strength acrylic plastics. GKN Aerospace makes advanced military and commercial transparencies, such as aircraft canopies, windshields, cabin windows, bullet-resistant glass, and spacecraft windows. In polymer chemistry lingo, MMA is known as a monomer. Monomers are like individual links to a chain. Under the right conditions they link up (react) with each other to form long-chained polymers, or plastics. MMA is an unstable monomer that requires controlled storage conditions to avoid setting off a polymerization (chain) reaction. According to early reports, the MMA tank at GKN Aerospace overheated. The cause of the overheating is not yet clear, but the overheating may have created conditions enabling the MMA to initiate polymerization, which in turn generated heat, which in turn generated pressure, activating the tank’s pressure-relief system and releasing MMA vapor into the atmosphere. Concerns about a runaway reaction, massive release, and explosion led the Orange County Fire Authority to order evacuation of approximately 40,000 residents and closure of thirteen schools. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

    Federal Bid Protest Standard of Review and Disparate Treatment with Ratings

    August 16, 2026 —
    A recent decision out of the Federal Claims Court explains the post-award bid protest standard of review. In Massman Construction Co. v. U.S., 2026 WL 1971985 (Fed.Cl. 2026), a protestor brought a post-award bid protest after the Army Corps of Engineers awarded the contract to another contractor. The protestor argued that the Army Corps (government) acted irrational in its evaluation through disparate treatment. The Court of Federal Claims agreed and remanded for the Army Corps to “either justify this disparity or explain why [awardee’s] lower-priced, but technically inferior proposal provides the best value to the government.” Massman Construction, supra at *1. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Traub Lieberman Wins Affirmation of Judgment on Pleadings Before the Seventh Circuit

    August 16, 2026 —
    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Adam Joffe obtained affirmation of judgment from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of an Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its Insured, a Roofing Contractor, in an underlying lawsuit. The Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy with a one-year policy term. The policy included an exclusion that barred coverage for any losses arising out of work the insured completed before the date the policy incepted. Reprinted courtesy of Dana A. Rice, Traub Lieberman and Adam P. Joffe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rice may be contacted at drice@tlsslaw.com Mr. Joffe may be contacted at ajoffe@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

    Vacant Building Negates Coverage for Broken Pipe

    September 01, 2026 —
    The Michigan Court of Appeals found the insured was not covered for water damage because the commercial space was left vacant. Cherry Hill Recreation Center, Inc. v. Conifer Ins Co., 2026 Mich, App. LEXIS 5099 (Mich Ct. App. June 18, 2026). Alan Abbas purchased a bowling alley. Due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and executive orders issued by the governor, Abbas was unable to operate the bowling center for several months. During the winter, Abbas allowed the thermostat to drop significantly, with the building expected to be around 43 degrees Fahrenheit. He later admitted the sprinkler system’s pipes were not protected against freezing. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    June 23, 2026 —
    n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act

    August 25, 2026 —
    Editor’s Note: Wadsworth Revisited In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, we published Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims. At the time, the decision warranted a significant warning to contractors and subcontractors performing public work in Colorado. The Court of Appeals concluded that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim improperly included unliquidated delay damages and that, because the claim was excessive, Wadsworth forfeited its right to recover the amounts included in the claim. We cautioned contractors to carefully scrutinize verified statements of claim and to avoid including unliquidated damages or amounts that were not yet due and payable. The Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed that decision. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Barden, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC