BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska office building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska Medical building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska hospital construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska tract home expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska multi family housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska condominium expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska townhome construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska condominiums expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska retail construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska institutional building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska production housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska casino resort expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska custom home expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska low-income housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska industrial building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska
    Fort Yukon Alaska slope failure expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska forensic architectFort Yukon Alaska structural concrete expertFort Yukon Alaska delay claim expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction expert witness public projectsFort Yukon Alaska multi family design 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


    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Augmented and Mixed Reality in Construction

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

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

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

    Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January
    Corporate Profile

    FORT YUKON ALASKA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fort Yukon, Alaska Expert Witness Engineer Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Fort Yukon, Alaska

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    November 21, 2018 —
    Recent court decisions have signaled the courts’ proclivity to prefer arbitration over full-fledged litigation when provisions in construction contracts are called into question. While the courts recognize a party’s constitutional right to a jury trial, the courts also lean strongly towards resolving disputes via arbitration as a matter of public policy, especially if a construction contract carves out arbitration as an alternative to litigation. In Avr Davis Raleigh v. Triangle Constr. Co., 818 S.E.2d 184 (N.C. App. 2018), the North Carolina Appeals Court reviewed the issue of whether the contracting parties selected binding arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The contract at issue was an AIA A201-2007 form document. Under the terms of the contract, the parties elected to arbitrate claims under $500,000 but to litigate claims over this amount. However, if there were several claims under $500,000 but the aggregate of all claims exceeded $500,000, then the contract implied that all claims would be arbitrated. Since the claims involved were an amalgamation of the two, the contracting parties disagreed about whether the arbitration provision would apply. The plaintiff interpreted this provision to mean litigation was mandatory when at least one claim exceeded $500,000 and that arbitration was mandatory when no single claim exceeded this amount. In contrast, the defendant interpreted this provision as meaning that when there were several claims worth less than $500,000 individually, but more than $500,000 aggregately, then all claims must be arbitrated. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s interpretation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Plaza, White & Williams LLP

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    May 20, 2019 —
    It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

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

    February 27, 2019 —
    On October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision. The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond. Reprinted courtesy of Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

    March 27, 2019 —
    I have discussed the Hensel Phelps case and the potential issues caused by both poorly drafted indemnity clauses and the lack of a statute of limitations applicable to the Commonwealth of Virginia and its agencies in 2017. New legislation (supported by various contractor groups including my friends at the AGC of Virginia) has been proposed for the 2019 General Assembly session that seeks to address at least part of this issue. While the indemnity provisions of your construction contracts can be addressed by careful drafting with the help of an experienced construction attorney, the proposed legislation (found in HB1667) seeks to address the statute of limitations issue. The proposed legislation is described as follows:
    Provides that no action may be brought by a public body on any construction contract, including construction management and design-build contracts, unless such action is brought within five years after substantial completion of the work on the project and that no action may be brought by a public body on a warranty or guarantee in such construction contract more than one year from the breach of that warranty, but in no event more than one year after the expiration of such warranty or guarantee. The bill also limits the time frame during which a public body, other than the Department of Transportation, may bring an action against a surety on a performance bond to within one year after substantial completion of the work on the project.
    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

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    March 04, 2019 —
    The Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week in Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. that two insurers must contribute proportionally to the defense of an additional insured under their comprehensive liability policies. In 2008, torrential rainstorms battered the Milwaukee area for two days. The downpour overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, causing significant flooding in homes throughout the region. Out of those floods sprang several lawsuits against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”) for negligent inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of Milwaukee’s sewage system. MMSD was an additional insured under liability policies covering two other water service providers responsible for the city’s sewer systems. The first policy was issued by Greenwich Insurance Company for United Water Services Milwaukee, LLC, and the second was issued by Steadfast Insurance Company for Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC. After learning of the lawsuits, MMSD tendered its defense of the sewage suits to both insurers. Steadfast accepted the defense; but Greenwich refused, claiming that its policy was excess to Steadfast’s based on an “other insurance” clause in Greenwich’s policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

    May 06, 2019 —
    Many subcontracts contain a provision in the default section that reads something to the effect: “Upon any default, Subcontractor shall pay to Contractor its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in enforcing this Subcontract or seeking any remedies hereunder.” Oftentimes, a party may wonder as to the enforceability of the provision and how it is applied in the context of a dispute between a contractor and its subcontractor where both parties have asserted claims against the other. In an opinion out of the Middle District of Georgia, U.S. f/u/b/o Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Stellar Group, Inc., 2019 WL 338887 (M.D.Ga. 2019), a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project each asserted claims against the other in the approximate amount of $4 Million, meaning there was a potential $8 Million swing in the dispute. The subcontract contained a provision entitling the contractor to recover attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing the subcontract or seeking remedies under the subcontract upon any default, identical to the provision above. 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

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    February 18, 2019 —
    An unusual Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, known also as Superfund) remedial action has resulted in a broad ruling that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remedial actions and their implementation by EPA contractors may be entitled to broad protection from liability insofar as the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is involved. The case is Gadsden Industrial Park LLC v. United States of America, CMC Inc., and Harsco Corporation, an unpublished opinion released by the court on November 30, 2018. After the Gulf States Steel Corporation, the owner and operator of a former steel manufacturing facility located in Gadsden, AL, declared bankruptcy, in 2002, Gadsden Industrial Park LLC (Gadsden) purchased 434 acres of the 761 acre site, as well as assets located in what is described as the “Excluded Real Property”—recyclable materials generated in the steel making process known as “kish” and “slag,” and a track of a railroad line located in this area. However, in the 2007 or 2008, the Eleventh Circuit observes, EPA began a CERCLA remedial cleanup action on the Excluded Real Property and barred Gadsden from entering the Excluded Real Property to make use of its new assets. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    November 21, 2018 —
    Cybersecurity is a growing concern for today's businesses. While it's always advisable to take whatever action possible to avoid a cybersecurity breach, no security measures can be one hundred percent perfect, and malicious actors are always innovating and trying to find new security flaws. The implementation of new technology brings with it new opportunities, but also potentially new vulnerabilities. And hackers have one major advantage – those working to defend against cyber-attacks have to try to find and fix every potential exploit, whereas those on the other side only need to find one. As demonstrated by recent high-profile breaches at Google and Facebook, even massive tech companies with access to vast financial resources and top engineering talent can still fall prey to cyber-attacks. Therefore, understanding how to respond to a breach is just as critical to a company's cybersecurity plan as attempting to prevent one. Below are a few solid tips on how to react when an organization's cybersecurity has been compromised. Plan in Advance The best response to a cybersecurity breach begins before the breach ever happens. A written incident response plan is of paramount importance. In the immediate aftermath of a cybersecurity breach, people will be scared and stressed. In those circumstances, they will be more likely to be able to respond effectively if there is a plan laid out for them and they have received training on how to follow that plan. Make sure that employees are trained on the parts of the plan that are relevant to them. Most may only need to know who to report to if they suspect a breach may have occurred, while those who will be involved in the breach response will need more in-depth training. The plan should also be updated regularly to account for staffing changes, new technology, and the evolving legal landscape. The law may also require a plan for responding to cybersecurity breaches, depending on the jurisdiction. Call Your Lawyer- Early and Often At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, attorneys are critical in responding to a cybersecurity breach. The most obvious reason is to advise clients on their legal obligations and potential liability – and this is indeed an important function. The patchwork of federal and state regulations governing cybersecurity is something laypeople – and even non-specialized attorneys – should navigate with caution. Of equal importance is the preservation of confidential communication under the attorney-client privilege. The presence of an attorney helps to improve the security of information surrounding the response to the breach because correspondence with that attorney is privileged, allowing candid evaluation of the breach. The ability to assert attorney-client privilege regarding an internal investigation and response can be quite useful in the event of a later external investigation or litigation. To Disclose or Not to Disclose? An important question that needs to be asked in the wake of a cybersecurity breach is whether the incident must be disclosed, and if so, when, how, and to whom should such disclosures be made? While many understandably wish that their mistakes and failures will never see the light of day, there are also many people who will want to know when a company's cybersecurity has been breached. Shareholders want to know – and may have a right to know – if such a breach has harmed the business. Consumers want to know if their personal information has been compromised so that they can protect against identity theft. Furthermore, state breach notification laws may mandate certain disclosures to consumers depending on facts surrounding the breach. Legal requirements from states, the federal government, and even foreign entities may also require companies to provide notices to one or more regulatory agencies. An attorney can advise on whether a company is legally required to provide any notice in the aftermath of a data breach, but even though notice may not be a legal requirement in a particular set of circumstances, it may still be prudent to give it anyway. Google decided not to disclose the recent breach of data from its Google+ service to avoid a PR and regulatory backlash, but the fact that it had happened eventually leaked out anyway. Even though legal experts have opined in the aftermath that Google likely was not obligated to disclose the breach, the fact that it did not caused exactly what Google attempted to avoid, but with magnified effect. "Google Experiences Consumer Data Breach" may not have been a good headline, but "Google Hides Consumer Data Breach" was a worse one. Remember: Protection Is Key No company wants a cybersecurity breach, but past experience has increasingly demonstrated that this is not a question of "if" but rather one of "when" and "how bad." Planning ahead and knowing what to do when a data breach does happen can ensure that an organization bounces back from a breach as smoothly and painlessly as possible. Scott Satkin and Kyle Janecek are associates in the Cybersecurity group of Newmeyer & Dillion. Focused on helping clients navigate the legal dispute implications of cybersecurity, they advise businesses on implementing and adopting proactive measures to prevent and neutralize cybersecurity threats. For questions on how they can help, contact Scott at scott.satkin@ndlf.com and Kyle at kyle.jancecek@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of cybersecurity, business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of