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

    Alabama Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Although there is case law precedent for right to repair, Title 6 Article 13A states action must be commenced within 2 years after cause and not more than 13 years after completion of construction.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Madrid Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tallapoosa Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0186
    714 Commerce Drive
    Alexander City, AL 35010


    Home Builders Association of Tuscaloosa
    Local # 0188
    2009 Paul W Bryant Dr
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
    http://www.tuscaloosahomebuilders.com

    Chilton County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0117
    209 Parliament Parkway
    Maylene, AL 35114


    Lee Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0136
    528 Lafayette Pl
    Auburn, AL 36830


    Home Builders Association of Phenix City
    Local # 0172
    1808 Opelika Road
    Phenix City, AL 36867


    Associated Home Builders of Greater Birmingham
    Local # 0116
    5000 Grantswood Road Ste 240
    Irondale, AL 35210
    http://www.birminghambuilder.com

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117
    http://www.gmhba.org


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Madrid Alabama

    Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    Will Colorado Pass a Construction Defect Reform Bill in 2016?

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

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

    10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    What Is a Construction Defect in California?

    Self-Storage Magnates Cash In on the Surge in Real Estate

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Court Holds That Public Entity Can Unilaterally Replace Subcontractor Under California’s Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think
    Corporate Profile

    MADRID ALABAMA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Through over four thousand construction defect and claims related expert designations, the Madrid, Alabama Construction Expert Directory delivers a wide range of trial support and consulting services to builders and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides construction related consulting and expert witness support services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Employing in house resources which comprise credentialed construction consultants, NCARB certified architects, forensic engineers, building envelope and design experts, the firm brings regional experience and flexible capabilities to the Madrid construction industry.

    Madrid Alabama construction scheduling expert witnessMadrid Alabama construction forensic expert witnessMadrid Alabama expert witness roofingMadrid Alabama building envelope expert witnessMadrid Alabama stucco expert witnessMadrid Alabama forensic architectMadrid Alabama multi family design expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Madrid, Alabama

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    January 27, 2020 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, confirming there was no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defect claim against the insured. Fontaine Bros. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148056 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2019). The City of Worcester contracted with Fontaine Brothers, Inc. to install a new ice refrigeration system at the City's indoor ice rink. After construction, the condensers in two chiller units eroded and stopped operating. The City sued Fontaine for the costs of leasing temporary chillers and installing new ones. The City alleged that Fontaine installed condensers with carbon steel tubes instead of contractually required stainless stell tubes.Further, Fontaine and its subcontractors did not adequately maintain the condensers, in breach of the contract. Fontaine's insurer, Acadia Insurance Company, denied coverage. Fontaine sued Acadia. The court noted that the City's complaint plainly alleged faulty workmanship by Fontaine. However, the City's complaint did not allege that Fontaine intended the condensers to corrode and left open the possibility that Fontaine was unaware of any potential problem or did not foresee the corrosion likely to result from the use of carbon steel components or the maintenance work being done by its subcontractor. Therefore, the Cit's complaint did not foreclose the possibility that the corrosion resulting from Fontaine's alleged faulty workmanship and maintenance might be shown to be an unforeseen or unintended consequence of reckless or negligent conduct. Accordingly, it was possible that there was an occurrence under the policy language. 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

    3D Printing Innovations Enhance Building Safety

    October 07, 2019 —
    The mention of 3D printing alone is enough to get people excited, often conjuring images of a desktop console that can download and create three dimensional objects such as prototypes, or mechanical parts. And yet, in recent years the technology has given way to a slight impatience, as people begin to wonder how and when it will have a direct impact on both their lifestyles and their businesses. The construction industry has been quick to take advantage of these innovations, and the effects are tangible, especially regarding building safety. The 3D construction technology allows for several key advantages in terms of faster construction times, uncompromised quality of construction and lower costs—allowing for affordable dwellings to be quickly built for people in need. These advantages also lead to safety improvements during the building process. The ability to accelerate construction time without requiring an increase in labor results in a fewer construction-related workplace injuries and a reduction in material waste, making it an environmentally friendly construction method as well. ICC-Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), a subsidiary of the International Code Council (ICC) which develops model codes and standards (i.e. International Building Code, International Residential Code) and delivers a wide array of building safety services, has taken the lead on developing acceptance criteria to address building code compliance of 3D printed construction. Currently, 3D construction technology is not within the provisions of the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC). The acceptance criteria introduces new compliance measures for interior and exterior 3D printed concrete walls (with and without structural steel reinforcement), load-bearing and non-load-bearing walls, and shear walls in one-story, single-unit, residential dwellings. The 3D walls are constructed by printing two outer layers of 3D concrete and then filling the core with 3D concrete to form a solid wall. Reprinted courtesy of Mahmut Ekenel & Melissa Sanchez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Ekenel may be contacted at mekenel@icc-es.org Ms. Sanchez may be contacted at msanchez@icc-es.org Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

    February 03, 2020 —
    The insurer's efforts to exclude two of the insured's experts in a collapse case were unsuccessful. Hudon Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150148 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2019). The insureds' building collapsed. The remaining portions of the building required immediate stabilization. The insureds hired Mr. Laird, an engineer, to prevent further property destruction. The insured designated Mr. Laird as a non-retained expert for trial. Mr. Laird's report claimed that the collapse was caused because the building had been re-roofed many times without removal of the degraded underlying roofing materials, thereby adding additional weight to the roof structure. The insureds also designated Steve Cox as a non-retained expert. Mr. Cox was an architect who owned property neighboring the building that collapsed. He opined that the building collapsed because of the condition of very old mortar and not because of water standing on the building roof or because of roof repairs. Hudson sought to strike these two experts because their opinions were inconsistent with the admitted facts. A document produced by the insureds stated that a large amount of rainwater had collected on the roof and the weight of the rainfall was the proximate cause of the collapse. Hudson claimed that this statement qualified as a judicial admission, removing the question of causation from contention. The court disagreed that the statement was a judicial admission because it did not form any part of the pleadings. The statement may have been an evidentiary admission that could be controverted or explained by the parties. 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

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    January 13, 2020 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday (on a Thursday) here at Construction Law Musings, Victoria Pynchon (@vickiepynchon) joins us for the 4th time. Victoria is an attorney-mediator with ADR Services, Inc. in Century City; an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California; and, a negotiation consultant and trainer world-wide. Victoria co-founded She Negotiates Training and Consulting in 2010 and writes for ForbesWoman at its She Negotiates blog. She is the author of one of my favorite books on conflict resolution, A is for A*@!#, the Grownups’ ABC’s of Conflict Resolution reviewed at Musings here. First Let’s Talk About Anger Please raise your hand if your clients — corporate clients — are angry about the burdens of litigation. Irritated with the document “demands” and interrogatories. Frustrated about the e-discovery. Ticked off at the way opposing counsel asks them questions as if they’re lying. Hot under the collar about the mounting attorneys’ fees and the distance between the day suit was filed and the probable day on which a trial might eventually be scheduled. Simmering about the time the litigation consumes, time they’d prefer to be spending doing their actual jobs — planning for and implementing business strategies for a profitable future instead of fighting about the unprofitable past. And we’re not even talking about your clients’ anger at the defendant who has stolen their intellectual property or stopped worked at the construction site or refused to release the remaining funds in the construction loan account. And if you believe that powerful people in highly successful and profitable businesses do not fear that litigation might hurt their careers, think again. 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

    When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

    October 21, 2019 —
    Conflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith? A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics. On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP
    Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    December 16, 2019 —
    Amidst the constraints of weight limits, a seawall, a waterfront restaurant and high-voltage power poles, crews from ICI Interwest Construction Inc. and heavy mover Oxbo Mega Transport Solutions positioned a $20 million, 282-ft-long pedestrian and utility bridge in place this fall along the Everett, Washington, waterfront. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    November 04, 2019 —
    In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. 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

    Construction Defect Claim Not Timely Filed

    January 27, 2020 —
    If construction defect claims are not timely filed, Florida Statutes provide design and construction companies with a formidable defense. As a case in point, a Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge issued an Order granting summary judgment based on Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c), Florida’s Statute of Limitations governing actions founded on alleged construction defects. In Covenant Baptist Church, Inc. v. Vasallo Construction, Inc. and Lemartec Engineering & Construction Corporation, Plaintiff alleged multiple construction defects against two Defendants. The alleged defects were focused on water intrusion through the roofing systems and were known to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2006. However, four years and eleven months later, Plaintiff filed suit acknowledging that the building had “been plagued with water intrusion issues for a number of years,” and that Plaintiff’s complaints “regarding the water intrusion [had] been met largely with ‘band-aid’ type ineffective repairs.” Lemartec Engineering & Construction Corporation (“Lemartec”), filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to multiple counts and rested its Motion squarely on the shoulders of Florida’s four-year statute of limitations. Importantly, the statute begins to run “where there has been notice of an invasion of legal rights or a person has been put on notice of his right to a cause of action” Snyder v. Wernecke, 813 So.2d 213,216 (Fla 4th DCA 2002) (citing City of Miami v. Brooks, 70 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1954)). Plaintiff attempted to bypass the four-year nature of the statute by trying to classify the defects in question as latent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com