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

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    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

    Southwestern Indiana Builders
    Local # 1524
    2175 N Cullen Avenue
    Evansville, IN 47715
    http://www.sibaonline.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 Holland Indiana

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

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

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

    Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

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

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    Options When there is a Construction Lien on Your Property

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    U.S. Home Prices Climbed 0.1% in July as Gains Slowed

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High
    Corporate Profile

    HOLLAND INDIANA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through more than 4500 construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Holland, Indiana Construction Expert Directory offers a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to legal professionals and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides building related trial support and expert consulting services to widely recognized construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Utilizing captive assets which comprise licensed architects, civil engineers, building envelope experts, general and specialty contractors focused on the evaluation of construction claims, the firm brings a wealth of experience and local capabilities to Holland and the surrounding areas.

    Holland Indiana building consultant expertHolland Indiana roofing construction expertHolland Indiana architectural engineering expert witnessHolland Indiana construction expert witness consultantHolland Indiana eifs expert witnessHolland Indiana delay claim expert witnessHolland Indiana construction claims expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Holland, Indiana

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    March 28, 2018 —
    Part II of this three-part series compares and analyzes important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions), including Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part I covered Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. SCHEDULE/TIME Relevant Sections:
    • 2007 & 2017 A201: Section 3.10.1
    • 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs: Section 6.2
    AIA:
    • Section 3.10.1 of the 2007 A201 requires that the Contractor promptly after being awarded the Contract, prepare and submit a construction schedule providing for Work to be completed within the time limits required in the Contract Documents.
    • This schedule shall be revised at appropriate intervals.
    • The 2017 edition breaks down the schedule to contain date of commencement, interim milestone dates, date of substantial completion, apportionment of Work by trade or building system, and the time required for completion of each portion of the Work.
    • Under section 3.10.2 of the 2007 and 2017 versions, if the Contractor fails to provide a submittal schedule, the Contractor is not entitled to any additional compensation or a time extension based on the Owner’s or the Architect’s slow processing of submittals, regardless of how long they take.
    ConsensusDocs 200:
    • The 2017 Contract replaces the term Contract Time and instead requires a “Schedule of the Work…formatted in detailed precedence-style critical path method that (a) provides a graphic representation of all activities and events, including float values that will affect the critical path of the Work and (b) identifies dates that are critical to ensure timely and orderly completion of the Work.”
    • The Constructor must submit an initial schedule to the Owner only before, “first application for payment” and thereafter on a monthly basis. (Section 6.2.1).
    • The Owner is allowed to change the sequences provided in the schedule as long as it does not “unreasonably interfere with the Work.” (Section 6.2.2).
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    August 14, 2018 —
    Commercial general liability (CGL) policies for contractors traditionally contain a professional liabilities exclusion. This exclusion is generally added through a specific endorsement to eliminate coverage for professional services. Read the endorsement The point of the exclusion, in a nutshell, is simply to eliminate a CGL policy for a contractor serving as a professional liability policy. Contractors need to appreciate a professional liabilities exclusion added through endorsement because oftentimes there are delegated design components they are responsible for. Perhaps the contractor value engineered a system and is responsible for engineering and signing and sealing the engineered documents (through its subcontractor) associated with that system. Perhaps there is a performance specification that requires the contractor to engineer a system. Perhaps there is a design-build component. Regardless of the circumstance, this professional liabilities exclusion can certainly come into play, particularly if a defect is raised with the design or professional services associated with the engineered system. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    June 06, 2018 —
    The former president of New York contractor LPCiminelli—the firm that has been at the center of an alleged pay-to-play scheme playing out since 2016 when he and two other executives were indicted—got a reprieve as federal prosecutors said they were dropping all charges against him, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and making false statements to federal agents, according to a June 1 court filing. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

    July 02, 2018 —
    Parties involved in a dispute may face a choice between arbitration and litigation. Previous articles in this series have discussed various factors that can influence that choice. One generally perceived advantage of arbitration is finality. But how final and binding is an arbitration award? The answer is governed primarily by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act
      The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is a statute enacted in 1925 which provides the basic legal principles applicable to arbitration in the United States. At its core is the following principle—arbitration agreements involving interstate or foreign commerce (which includes virtually all construction contracts in the United States) must be considered:
    • Valid
    • Irrevocable; and
    • Enforceable, except on legal or equitable grounds for the revocation of a contract.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanne M. Harrison, Smith Currie
    Ms. Harrison may be contacted at jmharrison@smithcurrie.com

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    August 20, 2018 —
    Danny the Developer wishes to build Greenacre, a large residential and retail condominium complex in downtown Boston. However, Danny’s lender – the Bank of Barbara – will not lend Danny the money to develop the complex unless Danny’s architect signs a lender certificate. Danny presents the lender certificate to Allie the Architect, the certificate is relatively short and simple, it states:
    “Allie the Architect prepared plans and specifications relating to Greenacre. Allie the Architect certifies that the plans are in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, housing and other laws, ordinances, regulations including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and the Americans with Disability Act. The Plans do not encroach over, across or upon any such easements, rights-of-way, or subsurface rights and the like. Allie further certifies that the load bearing capacity of the soil is adequate to support the plans. The Bank of Barbara shall rely upon Allie the Architects certification in loaning money to Danny the Developer for Greenacre.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Goodelman may be contacted at jgoodelman@grsm.com

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    April 11, 2018 —
    The insured's suit against his broker for securing a policy with insufficient policy limits was dismissed when filed more than two years after the alleged professional negligence occurred. Pritchard v. Andy Houghton Ins. Agency, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018). Pritchard requested coverage for replacement of his property in the event of a total loss by fire. He obtained a policy from Houghton. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    August 20, 2018 —
    A recently released primer for the use of a life-cycle assessment approach to analyze the environmental impacts of buildings is considered a small but necessary step toward the ambitious goal of getting to net-zero embodied carbon and operational greenhouse gas emissions in the construction, operation and decommissioning of buildings. The LCA guide comes after the release of the first-of-its-kind benchmarking database of embodied carbon in existing buildings. And another first—a tool to calculate embodied carbon in construction—is on the horizon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    May 30, 2018 —
    A differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com