BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska condominium expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska condominiums expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska production housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska Medical building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska hospital construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska industrial building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska tract home expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska multi family housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska institutional building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska custom homes expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska custom home expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska townhome construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska retail construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska casino resort expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska office building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska
    Fort Yukon Alaska construction scheduling expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction claims expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska stucco expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction cost estimating expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska expert witness roofingFort Yukon Alaska construction expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction project management expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer 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.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Fort Yukon Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    609 S KNIK GOOSE BAY RD STE G
    Wasilla, AK 99654

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Anchorage
    Local # 0215
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Kenai Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 0233
    PO Box 1753
    Kenai, AK 99611

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Northern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0225
    9085 Glacier Highway Ste 202
    Juneau, AK 99801

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Fort Yukon Alaska


    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

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

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    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

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

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

    Creating a Custom Home Feature in the Great Outdoors

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Los Angeles Tower Halted Over Earthquake and other Concerns

    Despite Construction Gains, Cement Maker Sees Loss

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

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    Melissa Dewey Brumback Invited Into Claims & Litigation Management Alliance Membership

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Mind The Appeal Or: A Lesson From Auto-Owners Insurance Co. V. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. On Timing Insurance Bad Faith And Declaratory Judgment Insurance Claims Following A Nunn-Agreement

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered
    Corporate Profile

    FORT YUKON ALASKA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fort Yukon, Alaska Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Fort Yukon's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Fort Yukon, Alaska

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020

    September 03, 2019 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that ten of the firm's attorneys were recently recognized in their respective practice areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020. In addition, two attorneys have been named Best Lawyers ® 2020 "Lawyer of the Year." Greg Dillion was recognized by Best Lawyers as the 2020 Construction Law "Lawyer of the Year" award winner, while Thomas Newmeyer was recognized by Best Lawyers as the 2020 Litigation - Real Estate "Lawyer of the Year" award winner. Attorneys named to The Best Lawyers in America, include: Jason Moberly Caruso Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs Michael S. Cucchissi Real Estate Law Jeffrey M. Dennis Insurance Law Gregory L. Dillion Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate Joseph A. Ferrentino Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate Jon Janecek Real Estate Law Thomas F. Newmeyer Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Real Estate John O'Hara Litigation – Construction Bonnie T. Roadarmel Insurance Law Jane Samson Real Estate Law Newmeyer Dillion is immensely proud of our lawyers, whose consistent recognition demonstrates their contributions to the firm, our clients and the legal profession. With a history of over 35 years, Best Lawyers is the oldest peer review publication within the legal profession. Universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence, Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. Their listings are published in 77 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. Only one lawyer for each specialty and location is recognized as the "Lawyer of the Year," an award given to the individual with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic region. 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

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    June 25, 2019 —
    In your next contract, consider including some (or all!) of the following clauses to limit your liability and maximize your profits. Waiver of Consequential Damages While a proven breach of contract will leave a design professional or contractor exposed to direct or compensatory damages, a waiver of consequential damages will help “stop the bleeding” and protect the design professional or contractor from paying every damage that might flow from the breach. Consequential damages include those damages which indirectly flow from the breach of contract, for example, lost rents, lost profits, lost use, lost opportunity, loss of employee productivity, and damages to reputation. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has included a mutual waiver of consequential damages in its sample A201 for over 20 years. The AIA provision includes a definition of consequential damages which are waived, including many of the examples cited above. However, the AIA waiver of consequential damages clause carves out an exception for liquidated damages to the owner. Prudent design professionals and contractors will strike this exception so as not to render the clause meaningless. A well-drafted waiver clause will be mutual, will define which damages are consequential versus direct, and will not contain exceptions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tara Lynch - Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Lynch may be contacted at tlynch@grsm.com

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    October 07, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
    At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
    This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. 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

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    August 20, 2019 —
    This is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss. Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship. If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work. For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Hearst may be contacted at Brian.Hearst@lockton.com

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    October 21, 2019 —
    In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019). When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    September 23, 2019 —
    Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 430 (May 30, 2019), a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found “hundreds, if not thousands of cigarettes” in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and against the Union. 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

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

    August 26, 2019 —
    Bribery and corruption have long plagued the construction industry, particularly in the developing world and emerging markets. Large contracts often trickle down through layers of subcontractors, presenting opportunities for corruption at each level. The risk is enhanced in certain foreign jurisdictions, where large corporations may be wholly or partially state-owned enterprises and public officials may expect payment in exchange for state-issued licenses or government contracts. Recent enforcement trends indicate that both the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are increasingly targeting the construction industry for anti-bribery and corruption actions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Several former DOJ officials also recently commented that the construction industry has become a focus of anti-corruption enforcement efforts. The FCPA is a formidable tool for regulators, making it unlawful to influence a foreign government official with any type of payment or personal reward. While certain safe harbors apply — including de minimis payments made to expedite routine governmental action or the payment being lawful in the foreign jurisdiction — these exceptions are construed narrowly and can be difficult to apply in practice. Reprinted courtesy of Ralph A. Finizio, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Anthony Finizio, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Finizio may be contacted at finizior@pepperlaw.com Mr. Finizio may be contacted at finizioa@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    November 04, 2019 —
    The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
    • The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
      • The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
      • A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
      • Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
      Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
      Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com