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

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709
    http://www.InteriorABA.com

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

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

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

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


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Fort Yukon Alaska

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law

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

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    Singapore Unveils Changes to Make Public Housing More Affordable

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Design-build Trends, Challenges and Risk Mitigation

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    Las Vegas’ McCarran Tower Construction Issues Delays Opening

    Prison Time and Restitution for Construction Fraud

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force Continues to Set Fire to the Underground Economy

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

    Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not
    Corporate Profile

    FORT YUKON ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 4500 building and construction related expert designations, the Fort Yukon, Alaska Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to lawyers and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides building claims and trial support services to the building industry's most recognized companies, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, risk managers, and a variety of municipalities. Utilizing in house assets which include testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Fort Yukon and the surrounding areas.

    Fort Yukon Alaska construction defect expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction claims expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationFort Yukon Alaska construction expert testimonyFort Yukon Alaska hospital construction expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska slope failure expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska expert witness concrete failure
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Fort Yukon, Alaska

    Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

    July 09, 2019 —
    Often times, properly analyzing when a statute of limitations begins to run – not just how long it runs – is crucial to timely pleading. In Dep’t of Transp. v. Seattle Tunnel Partners, 2019 Wash.App. LEXIS 281 (Was. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2019), Division Two of the Court of Appeals of Washington addressed when the discovery rule starts the statute of limitations clock on a negligence cause of action. The court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows that the factual elements of the claim against the defendant exist. The clock starts to run even if the plaintiff wants to investigate the possibility of other contributing factors or the defendant identifies opposing viewpoints on the theory of the claim. In this matter, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) contracted with an engineering firm, WSP USA, Inc. (WSP), for an evaluation of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2001. As part of this project, WSP retained the services of Shannon and Wilson (S&W), another engineering firm, to conduct geological profile logs, groundwater-pumping tests, and prepare technical memoranda. In 2002, WSP and S&W installed a pumping well with an eight-inch steel casing (TW-2). In 2009, apparently based on the work done by WSP and S&W, WSDOT determined that a bored underground tunnel was the best option for replacing the viaduct. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    October 21, 2019 —
    I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    November 18, 2019 —
    A recent California law will hold homeowners’ associations accountable for the safety of their decks. SB326 now mandates all homeowners' associations to have decks inspected at least once every nine years by an architect or structural engineer to determine whether the decks are safe and waterproof. This law (Civil Code section 5551) follows SB721 which was passed in 2018 and requires a similar inspection every six years for other multifamily dwelling units. Failure to comply can result in paying the enforcement costs of local building agencies. DETAILS ON THE MANDATE: More specifically, the 2019 law requires inspections of wood “decks, balconies, stairways, and their railings” more than six feet off of the ground and designed for human use. Additionally, the engineer or architect must (1) certify that he or she has inspected for safety and waterproofing, and (2) certify the remaining useful life of the system. Further, the inspector must inspect a random sample of enough units to provide 95% confidence that “the results are reflective of the whole.” In other words, in addition to the inspector, the association will have to hire a statistician. The nine-year timetable for inspection is no coincidence. After all, the statute of limitations for construction defects is ten years. In fact, associations are required to give notice to their members before filing a suit against a builder. However, under the new law, the association can delay giving notice to its members “if the association has reason to believe that the statute of limitations will expire.” Also, recent case law held that builders could add requirements to CC&R’s to limit a board’s authority to file lawsuits – i.e. adding a supermajority vote by members. Under SB326, any such provisions are now void. Hence, “supermajority” voting provisions are now invalid. IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION These recent laws are clearly a reaction to the tragic collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkley in 2015 that resulted in the death of six college students. While it is imperative that decks be structurally safe, the requirements of SB326 will fuel more construction defect litigation. Joseph Ferrentino is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Newport Beach office. With 25 years of experience, Joe guides clients through construction law issues, among other areas. For more information on how Joe can help, contact him at joe.ferrentino@ndlf.com ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients’ business growth. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Plan Ahead for the Inevitable Murphy’s Law Related Accident

    August 06, 2019 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome back Melissa Dewey Brumback. Melissa (@melissabrumback) is a construction attorney and partner in the firm Ragsdale Liggett, PLLC in Raleigh. Melissa has spent over a decade representing engineers and architects, advising them on contract proposals to limit risks, and defending them when litigation does arise. She is the author of the award-winning Construction Law in North Carolina a blog dedicated to the A/E community. Melissa is rated AV, the best rating of the Martindale Hubbell lawyer rating system, is a certified LEED Green Associate, and serves as President of the RL Mace Universal Design Institute. She is also signed up to take a cruise this summer with her family (!). The recent cruise ship fiasco, in which thousands were stranded at sea for an entire week with no running water or toilet facilities, visibly brought to mind the old axiom to “Be Prepared.” As Chris likes to say, Murphy was an optimist. What does this have to do with your construction company? Plenty. Since time is money and a downed project extremely expensive, you should plan in advance for likely emergency situations. Some things to consider: 1. Emergency Contacts: Do you only have a cell number for your key project manager? You should have at least two ways to reach all key employees and subcontractors, as well as owner representatives and the designers of record. Consider that in a large emergency, sometimes entire cell phone towers are out of commission from overuse. A land line comes in awfully handy in such a situation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    July 22, 2019 —
    It was 9 years ago today that I announced the formation and start of my solo practice, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Back then, my children were in elementary and middle school. Now I have two college students, one at Appalachian State University (with a budding photography talent that has provided some photos for this blog (including that on this post)) and the other at West Virginia University, and a rising high school junior. In just the past year I began a tenure on the Section Council Virginia Bar Association Construction and Public Contracts Law section and chair of its Legislative Committee where I assisted in the drafting of the change in the mechanic’s lien form that takes effect today.. I was named to both the Virginia Business Magazine Legal Elite in Construction Law and for a 3rd consecutive year to Virginia Super Lawyers in Construction Litigation. I spoke on how to deal with a DPOR complaint this past November at the 39th Annual Construction Law and Public Contracts seminar (one I highly recommend for any lawyer interested in construction). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    June 10, 2019 —
    The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's determination that there was no coverage based upon the policy's "your work" exclusion. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Fla, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10689 (11th Cir. April 11, 2019). Mac Contractors contracted with the homeowners to custom build their home. After construction began, Mac left the site before completing the project and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The homeowners sued, alleged damage to wood floors and the metal roof. Southern-Owners originally agreed to defend under the CGL policy, but later withdrew the defense and filed this action for declaratory relief. The parties cross-filed motions for summary judgment. Southern-Owners argued that the "your work" exclusion applied to bar coverage. The "your work" exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' to 'your work' arising out of it or any part of it and included in the 'products' completed operations hazard.'" The "products' completed operations hazard" included all "'property damage' occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of . . . 'your work' except . . . (1) products that are still in your physical possession; or (2) work that has not yet been completed or abandoned." 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

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    July 30, 2019 —
    Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. 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

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    June 18, 2019 —
    Ordinance 52-19 became effective in April 2019 and expands upon existing San Francisco Building Code registration requirements for “Vacant or Abandoned” “Commercial Storefronts.” A storefront becomes “Vacant or Abandoned” once it has been unoccupied for 30 days (among other earlier triggers for blighted or unsecured storefronts). A “Commercial Storefront” is broadly defined as “any area within a building that may be individually leased or rented for any purpose other than Residential Use as defined in Planning Code.” (See § 103.A.5.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.) So, a building that is 97% leased could still contain a Vacant or Abandoned Commercial Storefront, which would technically require registration under the Building Code. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury
    Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com