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

    Pennsylvania Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 1875 stipulates that “no later than 90 days before filing an action, serve written notice of claim on the contractor. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 15 days to forward the claim to any subcontractor/supplier and 30 days after service of notice to offer to compromise and settle the claim by monetary payment without inspection, propose to inspect the dwelling that is the subject of the claim; or reject the claim. Contractor has 14 days after inspection to provide written notice of intention.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines New Park Pennsylvania

    No state license required. For public works projects, see General Services website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Adams County
    Local # 3920
    PO Box 3321
    Gettysburg, PA 17325


    Builders Association of Fayette County
    Local # 3961
    PO Box 1323
    Uniontown, PA 15401


    Somerset Co Builders Association
    Local # 3958
    PO Box 221
    Berlin, PA 15530
    http://www.SomersetCountyBuilders.org

    Franklin County Builders Association
    Local # 3912
    1102 Sheller Ave Ste C
    Chambersburg, PA 17201
    http://www.franklincountybuilders.com

    Building Industry Association of Philadelphia
    Local # 3946
    1735 Market St Ste A432
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    http://www.biaofphiladelphia.com

    Home Builders Association of Chester & Delaware Co
    Local # 3941
    1502 McDaniel Dr
    West Chester, PA 19380
    http://www.builderpa.com

    York County Builders Assn
    Local # 3972
    540 Greebriar Road
    York, PA 17404
    http://www.yorkbuilders.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For New Park Pennsylvania

    2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

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

    Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2025 Annual Meeting in Austin

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    White and Williams Announces Partner and Counsel Promotions

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

    Digital Twins for a Safer Built Environment

    Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes

    Climate Change a Factor in 'Unprecedented' South Asia Floods

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Quick Note: Termination for Convenience Provisions Give a Party Broad Discretion to End a Contractual Relationship

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor

    When is a “Notice of Completion” on a California Private Works Construction Project Valid? Why Does It Matter for My Collection Rights?

    New York Preserves Subrogation Rights

    The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage

    The Double-Breasted Dilemma

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    LA Fire Victims Are Betting on a Radical Idea to Help Them Rebuild

    After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    Free Texas MCLE Seminar at BHA Houston June 13th

    Sanctions Award Against Pro Se Plaintiff Upheld

    Savera Sandhu Joins Newmeyer Dillion As Partner

    Unlocking the Potential of AI and Chat GBT in Construction Management

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Seven Practice Areas in 2026 Best Law Firms

    Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

    Trump Tower Is Now One of NYC’s Least-Desirable Luxury Buildings

    Can Anyone Save Gary, Indiana?

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Legal Risks of Green Building
    Corporate Profile

    NEW PARK PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    With over 4500 general contracting and design related expert designations, the New Park, Pennsylvania Construction Expert Directory provides a single point of reference for construction defect and claims related support to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Employing in house resources which include registered architects, professional engineers, licensed general and specialty contractors, the construction experts group brings specialized experience and local capabilities to New Park and the surrounding areas.

    New Park Pennsylvania eifs expert witnessNew Park Pennsylvania structural concrete expertNew Park Pennsylvania expert witnesses fenestrationNew Park Pennsylvania construction expert witness public projectsNew Park Pennsylvania expert witness commercial buildingsNew Park Pennsylvania roofing construction expertNew Park Pennsylvania OSHA expert witness construction
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    New Park, Pennsylvania

    The Firm Turns 16!

    July 20, 2026 —
    I have always found it appropriate that my jump to solo practice and Independence Day are so close in time. Today marks the 16th anniversary of my first day as a solo practitioner of construction law at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Time sure has flown by thanks to the great clients and friends who followed me to solo practice and whom I have met since the firm’s founding on July 1, 2010. I also could not have made the transition and had the fun and success I have enjoyed over the past 16 years without the support of the best wife and family that any construction lawyer could want. Since the firm’s last anniversary, my youngest child (who was 7 when this journey began!) has graduated from N. C. State University with a fisheries and wildlife biology degree and is currently in Casper, Wyoming working for Wyoming Game & Fish, my second oldest is an assistant director of admissions at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC, and has celebrated his second wedding anniversary, and my oldest has celebrated her fifth marriage anniversary. Our home in Captiva, Florida continues its recovery from from Hurricane Ian and subsequent hurricanes. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill

    Brandy Price, Dean Pillarella Named to Lawdragon's "Next Generation" List

    June 22, 2026 —
    Charlotte/North Charleston Partner Brandy G. Price and New York Partner Dean Pillarella have been selected to "The 2026 Lawdragon 500 X – The Next Generation," which recognizes emerging leaders in law. Lawdragon's annual Next Generation listing highlights up-and-coming attorneys with fewer than 15 years in practice. The legal media company selected these honorees through a combination of peer nominations, extensive journalistic research by Lawdragon editors, and independent vetting. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Sausage-Making Often Relies on the Good Sense of the Chef Rather than the Recipe

    June 23, 2026 —
    Even for lawyers, the rules governing litigation can get complex and convoluted. Does something need to be filed? What needs to be filed? When is the deadline for filing? Simple questions with not always with straightforward answers. This was the case in R & J Sheet Metal, Inc. v. W.E. O’Neil Construction Co. of California, 111 Cal.App.5th 878 (2025), which involved sheet metal panels lost when they fell into the Port of Long Beach harbor. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Micromobility in Smart Cities: Keeping the Wheels in Motion

    May 26, 2026 —
    Mobility is the lifeblood of any city. How people are able to travel in, out and within a metropolitan area is vital to its citizens, businesses, supply chains and social services. And as U.S. cities have expanded in size and population density, the strategies for addressing mobility have evolved. Many have taken different approaches to public transit, and each city boasts a dense tapestry of roadways, walking paths and various parking options. But as cities continue to reexamine infrastructure strategies through smart city technology, a new field of transportation has emerged—micromobility. Designed for short-distance travel using lightweight vehicles (bikes, e-bikes, e-scooters, etc.), the industry’s global net worth has grown exponentially in recent years to the tune of hundreds of billions, with one forecast predicting it could reach $340 billion by 2030. Micromobility also finds itself at the forefront of various smart city technological improvements. Geofencing has been implemented in U.S. cities to determine where micromobility vehicles can operate, control speed limits, and park utilizing the vehicles’ GPS location. Internet of Things (IoT) technologies (satellite-based location receivers, cloud communication, internet links, etc.) have improved vehicle lifespans by keeping track of when vehicles require service and prevent vandalism and theft. Data collected from vehicles’ location tracking is routinely used for urban planning and smart city development. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury
    Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com

    Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes

    May 14, 2026 —
    Nevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000. By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3]. Reprinted courtesy of Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

    GRSM Secures Complete Judgment for Defense in Years-Long Dispute Spanning Multiple Venues

    June 22, 2026 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Hartford, Connecticut, and Dallas offices recently secured a complete defense judgment and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an arbitration on behalf of a longtime client, concluding a dispute that lasted several years and traversed multiple jurisdictions. The dispute initially arose in Texas state court, and almost immediately, the claimant began pursuing the matter aggressively, a pattern that continued until the day judgment was entered in GRSM’s client’s favor. GRSM’s team mounted a strong defense, achieving an early success in compelling mandatory arbitration. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Don’t Forget to Include Termination Language in Your Contract

    November 02, 2026 —
    A recent case explains why termination language or a basis to withhold contract sums is important in your contract. Don’t neglect this language or the negotiation that goes into having this language. In a recent dispute, GSD Contracting, LLC v. All American Builders & Debris Removal, Inc., 2026 WL 3068422 (Fla. 4th CA 2026), a subcontract included language that said that 10% retainage would be paid 90 days after final completion of the project. The subcontract did NOT include termination for cause language; it only included termination for convenience language. Towards the end of the project, mold was discovered warranting mold remediation. The subcontractor refused to perform until the mold was remediated. The general contractor claimed it was remediated but the subcontractor argued the remediation was insufficient because the contractor did not engage an industrial hygienist. After the subcontractor refused to complete its work, the general contractor terminated the subcontractor for cause. The subcontractor then sued the general contractor for its 10% retainage claiming the general contractor breached the subcontract. The trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, agreed. The appellate court found that the contract required the general contractor to pay the subcontractor’s retainage 90 days after final completion and the project had long been completed. “Significantly, the subcontract does not contain a termination for cause provision or any pertinent provision permitting [the general contractor] to withhold or retain [the subcontractor’s] retainage following a termination…Nothing in the subcontract provides that [the general contractor] may thereafter withhold the retainage based on an alleged default by [the subcontractor].” GSD Contracting, supra, at *2. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict

    May 26, 2026 —
    PHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction. The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale. The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market. According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona. Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing. ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997. About Gray Development Group Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.