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

    Wisconsin Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB448 specifies 90 day notice with details and evidence prior to commencing legal action. It provides for a 15 day written response from contractor or 25 days if cross-claims against subcontractors; The law states “The claimant and contractor or supplier are bound by any contractor or supplier warranty terms pertaining to products or services supplied for the dwelling.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Lake Tomahawk Wisconsin

    Contractors are required to have the correct credentials for their trade. Not all classifications require credentialing. For a list of credentials, see the website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Headwaters Builders Association
    Local # 5196
    PO Box 1074
    Minocqua, WI 54548
    http://www.headwatersbuilders.com

    Northland Area Builders Association
    Local # 5135
    29148 Mail Rd
    Danbury, WI 54830
    http://www.northlandareabuilders.com

    Heart of the North Builders Association
    Local # 5137
    PO Box 6
    Rice Lake, WI 54868
    http://www.hnbawi.org

    Wausau Area Builders Association
    Local # 5172
    141 W Thomas St
    Wausau, WI 54401
    http://www.wausauareabuilders.com

    St Croix Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 5182
    1632 ROLLING HILLS LN
    River Falls, WI 54022
    http://www.scvhba.com

    Door County Home Builders Association
    Local # 5103
    PO Box 112 4087
    Sturgeon Bay, WI 54235
    http://www.dchba.org

    Chippewa Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 5104
    4319 Jeffers Rd Ste 200
    Eau Claire, WI 54703
    http://www.cvhomebuilders.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Lake Tomahawk Wisconsin

    Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    New Survey Reveals Overwhelmingly Optimistic Results on the Use of AI in Construction

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    2022 Project of the Year: Linking Los Angeles

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    Contract And IP Implications Of Design Professionals Monetizing Non-Fungible Tokens Comprising Digital Construction Designs

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    New Safety Requirements added for Keystone Pipeline

    The Future Has Arrived: New Technologies in Construction

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

    Contractual Fee-Shifting in Litigation: Who Pays the Price?

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Alaska Supreme Court Finds Insurer Owes No Independent Duty to Injured Party

    The Creation of San Fransokyo

    Are You a Construction Lienor?

    Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    No Damages for Delay May Not Be Enforceable in Virginia

    Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

    Seattle Developer Defaults on Renovated Office Buildings

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    Achieving Sustainability Through Design-Build Delivery: Part I – An Overview

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    Jurisdictional Conflict Over “Related Claims”: Montana Federal Court Latest to Weigh in on When Claims Are Related

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

    GRSM Named Among 2025 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers

    Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain

    Default, Fraud, and VCPA (Oh My!)

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    Slow Down?

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction
    Corporate Profile

    LAKE TOMAHAWK WISCONSIN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over 4500 construction related expert witness designations, the Lake Tomahawk, Wisconsin Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction related trial support 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. In connection with in house personnel which comprise construction cost and scheduling experts, registered design professionals, forensic engineers, certified professional estimators, the construction experts group brings national experience and local capabilities to Lake Tomahawk and the surrounding areas.

    Lake Tomahawk Wisconsin construction project management expert witnessLake Tomahawk Wisconsin building consultant expertLake Tomahawk Wisconsin fenestration expert witnessLake Tomahawk Wisconsin ada design expert witnessLake Tomahawk Wisconsin construction expert testimonyLake Tomahawk Wisconsin expert witness concrete failureLake Tomahawk Wisconsin construction defect expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Lake Tomahawk, Wisconsin

    New Florida Law Adds Licensing Risk to Contractor/Subcontractor Payment Disputes

    September 29, 2026 —
    Effective July 1, 2026, Florida’s newly enacted Section 489.1295 of the Florida Statutes, titled “Prohibition Against Nonpayment,” requires licensed contractors to timely compensate subcontractors and suppliers for labor, services, or materials. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 290 (Ch. 2026-3, Laws of Fla.), the statute adds a new basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings against a contractor’s license if a payment is knowingly or willfully withheld. While this is not a sweeping overhaul of Florida construction payment laws by any means, contractors should be aware that nonpayment disputes with subcontractors and suppliers may carry potential licensing consequences. Reprinted courtesy of Brett J. Moritz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Ali Heyat, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Moritz may be contacted at bmoritz@pecklaw.com Mr. Heyat may be contacted at aheyat@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

    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

    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

    At the Frontier of Change: How—or Where—to Rebuild as Alaska's Permafrost Disappears

    September 28, 2026 —
    In some areas of the tiny subsistence coastal village of Kwigillingok along the Bering Sea in western Alaska, pockets of ground feel squishy, almost gelatinous, rather than solid. It’s an odd sensation, as if there is only a thin layer of muddy soil preventing people from falling into the water beneath their feet. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com

    Benchmark Litigation Recognizes Andrea DeField Among Nation’s Top Young Litigators

    September 08, 2026 —
    Hunton’s insurance coverage team is proud to celebrate the recognition of Andrea DeField on Benchmark Litigation’s 2026 40 & Under List, an annual ranking that highlights the nation’s leading litigators age 40 and under. Andrea was one of only six Hunton lawyers selected and was recognized in the South region. Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under List honors attorneys who have distinguished themselves through significant case work, client feedback, and peer review. This honor reflects Andrea’s reputation as one of the country’s leading policyholder-side insurance recovery litigators and her standing as a trusted advisor to companies facing some of today’s most complex insurance and risk management challenges. As head of Hunton’s cyber insurance practice, Andrea has built her career helping companies manage risk and maximize insurance recovery. Her practice spans the full spectrum of insurance-related issues, from advising clients on contractual risk transfer and insurance program design to representing policyholders in high-stakes coverage and bad faith disputes. She has guided clients through some of the most complex and widely publicized losses in recent years and helps companies recover under a broad range of insurance products, including D&O, professional liability, crime, property, cyber, and general liability policies. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Finds Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provisions

    September 29, 2026 —
    Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether ensuing losses as defined in the policy were covered. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ropicky, 2026 Wisc. LEXIS 302 (Wis. July 7, 2026). The insured suffered damage during a storm on May 11, 2018, when rainwater poured into the home. The insureds gave notice to their insurer, Cincinnati. Upon inspection, Cincinnati determined that water intrusion resulted from multiple construction defects in the home. In the front of the home, water entered through a gap in the stone veneer. The inspector also concluded that the damage from rainwater was not just from the May 11, 2018, storm, but damage had occurred from prior storm events. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Liens: Liening for Amounts Not Yet Technically Due Does Not Mean Lien Is Fraudulent

    August 11, 2026 —
    A 2024 bankruptcy ruling, In re Edgewater Construction Group, Inc., 657 B.R. 668 (S.D.Fla. 2024), touched upon an interesting issue when it comes to construction liens. Is a construction lien fraudulent simply because the lien includes amounts not yet due? Not necessarily. In this bankruptcy dispute, the subcontractor debtor (that filed for bankruptcy) recorded two construction liens on projects. The general contractor argued in the bankruptcy court that the subcontractor debtor’s liens were fraudulent. As to the first lien, the general contractor argued that the lien was fraudulent because it included amounts that the debtor knew the general contractor had already paid to the debtor’s subcontractors/suppliers. The bankruptcy court disagreed: “The Court finds that, although the Debtor had been told that [the general contractor] had paid these subcontractors, in light of the ongoing dispute between Debtor and [the general contractor], it was reasonable for the Debtor to demand proof. Debtor’s subsequent filing of a partial satisfaction of lien once the Debtor received the requested proof of payment from [the general contractor] counters any claim of willful exaggeration.” In re Edgewater Construction Group, supra, at 672-673. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Structural Engineer Claims Reinforcement Was Never Installed on Troubled NYC Tower

    September 01, 2026 —
    New York City has expanded its investigation into the structural failure at the former Pfizer headquarters tower in Midtown Manhattan as the Dept. of Investigation confirmed a parallel inquiry and the Dept. of Buildings directed the property owner to retain third-party engineering oversight. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com