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

    Alaska Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB151 limits the damages that can be awarded in a construction defect lawsuit to the actual cost of fixing the defect and other closely related costs such as reasonable temporary housing expenses during the repair of the defect, any reduction in market value cause by the defect, and reasonable and necessary attorney fees.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Chignik Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901
    http://www.sealaskabuilders.com

    Northern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0225
    9085 Glacier Highway Ste 202
    Juneau, AK 99801
    http://www.seabia.com

    Kenai Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 0233
    PO Box 1753
    Kenai, AK 99611
    http://www.kenaipeninsulabuilders.com

    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518
    http://www.buildersofalaska.com

    Home Builders Association of Anchorage
    Local # 0215
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518
    http://www.buildersofalaska.com

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    609 S KNIK GOOSE BAY RD STE G
    Wasilla, AK 99654
    http://www.matsuhomebuilders.com

    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709
    http://www.InteriorABA.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Chignik Alaska

    Rebuilding the West: Construction Considerations After the Smoke Clears

    Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

    Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    English v. RKK. . . The Saga Continues

    Do Hurricane-Prone Coastal States Need to Update their Building Codes?

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

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

    Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    Power to the Office Worker

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Homebuilders Call for Housing Tax Incentives

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    Whitney Stefko Named to ENR’s Top Young Professionals, formerly ENR’s Top 20 Under 40, in California

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

    More Broad-Based Expansion for Construction Industry Expected in 2015

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage
    Corporate Profile

    CHIGNIK ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over 4500 construction claims related expert witness designations, the Chignik, Alaska Construction Expert Directory delivers a comprehensive construction and design expert support solution to lawyers and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides building claims investigation, testimony, and support services to the industry's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, insurers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Employing in house resources which include construction cost, scheduling, and delay experts, professional engineers, ASPE certified professional estimators, and construction safety professionals, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Chignik and the surrounding areas.

    Chignik Alaska expert witness roofingChignik Alaska consulting engineersChignik Alaska construction code expert witnessChignik Alaska contractor expert witnessChignik Alaska consulting general contractorChignik Alaska engineering expert witnessChignik Alaska building code expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Chignik, Alaska

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    September 14, 2020 —
    To establish a product liability claim in Arkansas, the plaintiff must prove that the product was supplied in a defective condition, which rendered it unreasonably dangerous and that the defective condition was the proximate cause of the claimed damage or injury. Ordinarily, a plaintiff relies upon direct evidence of a product defect to establish its product liability claim. However, in some cases, the product sustains so much damage that it is impossible for a plaintiff to obtain direct evidence of a defect. The malfunction theory allows a plaintiff in a product liability action to establish a defect through circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence of a defect no longer exists. In order to utilize the malfunction theory, a plaintiff must present evidence that an unspecified product defect was the most likely cause of the damage/accident and rule out all other possible causes of the damage/accident. In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, No. 5:18-CV-5250, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117116, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence under “the malfunction theory” to defeat a summary judgment motion in a product liability action involving a bathroom fan that was destroyed in a fire. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    January 04, 2021 —
    Damage to a building caused by the break of a water pipe was not a collapse under the policy. Naabani Twin Stars v. Travelers Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196443 (D. N. M. Oct. 22, 2020). An underground water line ruptured on plaintiffs property This caused a collapse under the adjacent parking lot, which in turn caused land beneath the building go change positions and damage the building. A geotechnical consultant concluded that a material change in the site conditions occurred as a direct result of the rupture of the water pipe in the parking lot, and that those changes directly affected the settlement of the building. Travelers denied coverage for the damage. Travelers concluded that the building settlement was the result of subsurface movement, which invoked the earth movement exclusion. Travelers inspection concluded that the building was not in a state of collapse. The policy defined collapse as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or structure, or any part of a building or structure, with the result that the building, or part of the building, cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." 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

    No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society

    August 24, 2020 —
    In a widely anticipated ruling, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied two motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in hundreds of federal cases seeking coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Panel has ordered expedited briefing on whether four separate consolidated proceedings should be set up for four insurers – Cincinnati, Society, Hartford, and Lloyds – who appear to be named in the largest number of claims. In seeking a single, industry-wide MDL proceeding, some plaintiffs had argued that common questions predominated across the hundreds of pending federal suits: namely, [1] the question of what constituted ‘physical loss or damage’ to property, under the allegedly standardized terms of various insurers’ policies; [2] the question whether various government closure orders should trigger coverage under those policies, and [3] the question whether any exclusions, particularly virus exclusions, applied. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Konrad R. Krebs, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    January 11, 2021 —
    Terminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default. A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    December 21, 2020 —
    In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use. In D’Allesandro, the action arose out of the construction, marketing, sale and management of the Hewitts Landing Condominium (the Condominium) project. Ultimately, 150 units were constructed over 24 phases of construction, enclosed in 28 different buildings. Throughout construction, the project’s architect submitted declarations to the Town of Hingham swearing that the individual units were “substantially complete” and could be occupied for their intended use. The Town of Hingham then issued certificates of occupancy for the unit or building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    December 21, 2020 —
    Earlier this year I filed a complaint in a court which I won’t identify other than to say that it wasn’t the San Francisco Superior Court. Immediately upon filing the complaint the Court gave notice of a trial date. As counsel for the party bringing the action, I appreciate this, as it eliminates the back and forth jostling that can sometimes occur when trying to get a trial date. Here’s the kicker though. While I appreciate getting a trial date straight out of the gate. The date I got was . . . wait for it . . . not until 2022! Those who litigate in California state courts know that the courts are understaffed and overworked. But you’ve got to give this un-named court credit for being upfront. Forget the “well, let’s see where this goes” niceties. Trial within a year? Fugetaboutit. Trial within a year and a half. Don’t even think about it. Trial within two years. It’s about as good as you’re going to get. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    David McLain Recognized Among the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law

    October 19, 2020 —
    David McLain is a founding member of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Mr. McLain has over 22 years of experience and is well known for his work in the defense of the construction industry, particularly in the area of construction defect litigation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the CLM Claims College - School of Construction, which is the premier course for insurance, industry, and legal professionals. Law Week Colorado recently named Mr. McLain as the 2019 People’s Choice for Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. HHMR is highly regarded for its expertise in construction law and the litigation of construction-related claims, including the defense of large and complex construction defect matters. Our attorneys provide exceptional service to individuals, business owners, Fortune 500 companies, and the insurance industry. The firm is experienced in providing legal support throughout trials and alternative dispute resolution such as mediations and arbitrations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”

    August 24, 2020 —
    Associations have authority to pursue as a class, on behalf of all of their respective members, lawsuits “concerning members of common interest to the members.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.221. This includes, but is not limited to, the common property or the areas in which the association is responsible. But, what about matters or elements for which the association is not responsible or does not own? For example, issues or damages relative to a specific unit or owner that are prevalent throughout? The Third District Court of Appeal addressed this question in Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. Latitude on the River Condominium Association, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1518a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) when in affirmed a class certification by a condominium association relating to the removal and replacement of the condominium building’s defective fire sprinkler system. In affirming the class certification by the condominium association, the Third District maintained:
    Rule 1.221 expressly authorizes condominium associations to “institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all association members concerning matters of common interest to the members.” “[A]s to controversies affecting the matters of common interest . . ., the condominium association, without more, should be construed to represent the class composed of its members as a matter of law.” “[T]he common interest provision of the rule has been interpreted to permit a class action by the association for a construction defect located physically within a unit, rather than in the common elements, if the defect is prevalent throughout the building.” We, therefore, cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding that damages resulting from the replacement of the fire-sprinkler system throughout the building were a matter of common interest for purposes of certification at this stage of the litigation. Allied Tube and Conduit Corp, supra (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com