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

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southwestern Indiana Builders
    Local # 1524
    2175 N Cullen Avenue
    Evansville, IN 47715
    http://www.sibaonline.org

    Home Builders Association of Southern Indiana
    Local # 1566
    1601 Greentree Court
    Clarksville, IN 47129
    http://www.hbasi.net

    Gibson Co Chapter
    Local # 1530
    PO Box 386
    Princeton, IN 47670


    Builders Association of Dubois County
    Local # 1511
    1813 S A St
    Jasper, IN 47546
    http://www.dcbuilder.org

    Vincennes Area Chapter
    Local # 1563
    PO Box 531
    Vincennes, IN 47591


    River Valley Chapter of National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 1576
    PO Box 365
    Hanover, IN 47243


    Lawrence County Chapter
    Local # 1535
    201 Main Street c/o Hoosier Door
    Oolitic, IN 47451



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Chandler Indiana

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin

    Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

    Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    KB Home Names New President of its D.C. Metro Division

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

    You Are Your Brother’s Keeper. Direct Contractors in California Now Responsible for Wage Obligations of Subcontractors

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    No Hiring Surge by Homebuilders Says Industry Group

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

    No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor
    Corporate Profile

    CHANDLER INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    With over four thousand construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Chandler, Indiana Construction Expert Directory provides a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to attorneys and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the building industry's most recognizable companies, insurers, risk managers, and a variety of municipalities. Utilizing in house assets which include testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, licensed general and specialty contractors, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Chandler and the surrounding areas.

    Chandler Indiana expert witnesses fenestrationChandler Indiana hospital construction expert witnessChandler Indiana architecture expert witnessChandler Indiana construction claims expert witnessChandler Indiana expert witness commercial buildingsChandler Indiana expert witness roofingChandler Indiana architectural engineering expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Chandler, Indiana

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

    August 20, 2018 —
    Today, our colleagues Alex Ginsberg, Glenn Sweatt and Kevin Massoudi published their Client Alert on a recently issued Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) Report that finds over $15 billion in waste, fraud and abuse. In New SIGAR Report Identifies “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan, our colleagues identify key takeaways from the Report include:
    • The Report reviewed public spending for Afghanistan reconstruction efforts and identified at least $15.5 billion in waste, fraud and abuse.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    August 07, 2018 —
    Have you entered into a subcontract that requires you to arbitrate disputes? If so, does the arbitration provision require you to arbitrate your dispute outside of Florida? If so, the case of Sachse Construction and Development Corp. v. Affirmed Drywall, Corp., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1622e (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) applies and reinforces the notion: Read and consider what you sign! In Sachse Construction, a drywall subcontractor entered into a subcontract for a construction project in Miami with an arbitration provision. The subcontract provided that it shall be construed in accordance with Michigan law and required that arbitration shall take pace in Michigan per the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    July 18, 2018 —
    A hole punched into a 4-in.-dia gas pipeline during fiber-optic line laying is blamed for an explosion that killed a 34-year-old fire captain and injured nine other people, including four firefighters, in downtown Sun Prairie, Wis., on July 10. The injured were treated at nearby hospitals and have since been released. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    May 30, 2018 —
    Arbitration and litigation each offer their own benefits and drawbacks to litigants looking to resolve a construction dispute. A careful analysis of these benefits and drawbacks may be helpful in determining whether to avoid or pursue either dispute resolution process. Arbitration is oftentimes regarded as the more economically feasible dispute resolution option and is therefore attractive to many construction dispute litigants. Although arbitration may prove to be less expensive than litigation in the long run, some litigants may prefer to file a case in court because the upfront filing fees in litigation are less expensive than the filing fees of arbitration. Litigants may also prefer the decision makers of one process for dispute resolution over another. Arbitrators in a construction dispute oftentimes have a background in the construction industry, whereas a judge or jury may not. Strategy may dictate whether the preferable decision maker should have experience within the construction industry or be free of any construction industry knowledge and possible biases. The finality of decisions may also be a reason to strategically choose one dispute resolution process over another. Arbitration decisions are overturned only under very narrow and specific circumstances. The losing party in litigation however, has a right to appeal decisions to a higher court and has more options for recourse when the findings of the court are not supported by the evidence or the law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Whitney Judson, Smith Currie
    Ms. Judson may be contacted at wtjudson@smithcurrie.com

    White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

    July 18, 2018 —
    As part of a sweeping federal government reorganization proposal, the White House has recommended shifting the Army Corps of Engineers’ civil-works operation to the Dept. of Transportation and the Dept. of the Interior. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    July 02, 2018 —
    California’s “anti-SLAPP” (“SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute—codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.—is the primary vehicle for defending against any action involving petitioning or free speech. The statute was designed to provide an early and fast summary judgment-like procedure to allow defendants and cross-defendants to file a motion to dismiss either an entire complaint, specific causes of action, or even just portions of a cause of action, and to require the plaintiff to respond before conducting discovery. By facilitating an early challenge to a plaintiff or cross-complainant’s claims, the anti-SLAPP statute allows the responding party to avoid the costs and delay that chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f), an anti-SLAPP motion must be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint . . . .” But what if the plaintiff files an ameded complaint? In Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, the California Supreme Court held that the 60-day timeline runs from the date a complaint is filed with the cause(s) of action challenged in the anti-SLAPP motion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    March 14, 2018 —
    Unfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense. In Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage. After the Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense. The key issue before the Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued. In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid. While Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs. Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later. Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com. Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com. ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    August 20, 2018 —
    Faced with a series of policies, earlier ones which did not define collapse, newer policies which did, the court determined there was a possibility of coverage under the older policies which did not define collapse. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100548 (D. Conn. June 15, 2018). Connecticut courts have faced a rash of collapse cases as a result of cement provided to build house foundations by J.J. Mottes Concrete Co. Many basement foundations built with the concrete have shown cracking and other signs of premature deterioration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com