BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama hospital construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama custom home expert witness Slocomb Alabama multi family housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama custom homes expert witness Slocomb Alabama office building expert witness Slocomb Alabama institutional building expert witness Slocomb Alabama industrial building expert witness Slocomb Alabama production housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama Medical building expert witness Slocomb Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Slocomb Alabama retail construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama landscaping construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama high-rise construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama parking structure expert witness Slocomb Alabama casino resort expert witness Slocomb Alabama condominium expert witness Slocomb Alabama condominiums expert witness Slocomb Alabama tract home expert witness Slocomb Alabama
    Slocomb Alabama construction expert witness consultantSlocomb Alabama consulting engineersSlocomb Alabama roofing construction expertSlocomb Alabama contractor expert witnessSlocomb Alabama building consultant expertSlocomb Alabama engineering consultantSlocomb Alabama architect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Slocomb, 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.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Slocomb Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Dothan & Wiregrass Area
    Local # 0132
    PO Box 9791
    Dothan, AL 36304
    Slocomb Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Enterprise Home Builders Association
    Local # 0133
    PO Box 310861
    Enterprise, AL 36331
    Slocomb Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Metro Mobile Inc
    Local # 0156
    1613 University Blvd S
    Mobile, AL 36609

    Slocomb Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Baldwin County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0184
    916 PLantation Blvd
    Fairhope, AL 36532

    Slocomb Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    South Alabama Home Builders Association
    Local # 0102
    PO Box 190
    Greenville, AL 36037
    Slocomb Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alabama
    Local # 0100
    PO Box 241305
    Montgomery, AL 36124

    Slocomb Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117

    Slocomb Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Slocomb Alabama


    Drafting a Contractual Arbitration Provision

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Southern California Super Lawyers Lists

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    Skyline Bling: A $430 Million Hairpin Tower and Other Naked Bids for Tourism

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

    Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Back Posting with Thoughts on Lien Waivers

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

    Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    #2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

    Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Insurance and Your Roof
    Corporate Profile

    SLOCOMB ALABAMA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Slocomb, Alabama 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 Slocomb'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
    Slocomb, Alabama

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    May 01, 2019 —
    In Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Cellar Advisors, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10655 (E.D. Mo.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered the scope of a waiver of subrogation clause in two wine storage agreements. The court held that the subrogation waivers were limited in scope and, potentially, did not apply to the damages alleged in the pleadings. This case establishes that, in Missouri, waivers of subrogation are narrowly construed and cannot be enforced beyond the scope of the specific context in which they appear. In 2005, Krista and Reid Buerger (the Buergers) contracted Marc Lazar (Lazar) to assist with purchasing, transporting and storing their wine. In 2006, the Buergers entered into a contract with Lazar’s company, Domaine StL, for the storage of their wine in St. Louis. In 2012, the Buergers contracted with Lazar’s other company, Domaine NY, for storage of their wine in New Jersey. The 2006 and 2012 contracts included subrogation waivers. Pursuant to the contracts, Lazar and the Domaine companies (collectively, Defendants) would buy wine for the Buergers by either using the Buergers’ credit card or invoicing them after a purchase. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    January 28, 2019 —
    The insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018). The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous. The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration. The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued. 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

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    April 03, 2019 —
    In September 2018, in Baumgartner v. Timmins, 245 Ariz. 334, 429 P.3d 567, the Arizona Court of Appeals provided further clarification on what constitutes an “encumbrance” on a property for purposes of Arizona’s statutory scheme prohibiting the recording of “false documents.” The statute, A.R.S. § 33-420, prohibits the recording of documents that a person knows to be forged, are groundless, or that contain material misstatements (or false claims). A person who claims an “interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against” real property who records such documents can be held liable for $5,000 or treble the actual damages caused by the recording (whichever is greater), A.R.S. § 33-420(A), and perhaps even be found guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, A.R.S. § 33-420(E). At issue in Baumgartner were neighbors fighting about CC&Rs—a typical neighborhood fight. In 2015, some of the neighbors filed suit against the Timminses for violating the CC&Rs. The Timminses did not contest the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In what the Court of Appeals characterized as a lawsuit filed by the Timminses “in apparent response to the [first] lawsuit and resulting default judgment,” the Timminses created, signed, and recorded affidavits contending that the Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were themselves “in violation of several provisions of the CC&Rs.” The Plaintiffs then filed suit again against the Timminses, this time contending that the Timminses had violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording the affidavits because the affidavits, the Plaintiffs contended, created encumbrances on their properties. The Apache County Superior Court agreed, and issued a final judgment nullifying the recorded documents and awarding the Timminses damages, along with their attorneys’ fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

    Helsinki is Building a Digital Twin of the City

    May 20, 2019 —
    The capital of Finland first tested city modeling as long back as 1987. But the most recent model of the Kalasatama district demonstrates the new state-of-the-art possibilities of this technology: creation of a highly accurate digital twin of the city. My hosts, Helsinki’s city modeling specialists Jarmo Suomisto and Enni Airaksinen, showed me their latest projects. One of them offered a glimpse of history through a lens of the future. With 3D glasses on, I was able to experience the unrealized city plan made by Eliel Saarinen, the father of the world-renowned architect Eero Saarinen. The virtual model in question was a digitized version of a huge physical model from 1915. Being able to stroll the streets and fly over the roofs of the imagined city really made me understand how awesome the original design was. I had seen a scale model of this same plan while it was laid in the foyer of the Museum of Finnish Architecture many years ago, but this experience was quite different. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    May 06, 2019 —
    After an hour long phone conference with a client, I have had several thoughts, only a few of which I can share here (grin). The first is that my friends and clients in the construction industry are hurting, but need to work with an attorney to assure that the pain is lessened. The second is that more, not less, precision is needed in construction contracting these days. The reason for the first thought is that the construction industry has taken a hit lately. The news is fraught with stories of the economic downturn and its impact on construction. While the money may be hard to part with, all construction professionals should get their contracts and business practices audited regularly to avoid risk and assure, as best as is possible, that they are protected. One place to get such triage is at my firm. If you don’t use me, please use someone else. On the second point, clients need attorney fees provisions, indemnity clauses and to assure that a scope of work is very specifically defined. Wiggle room is not available. In tough economic times. Owners will look for something closer to perfection when money is tight than when money is not. Contractors should also. Your contract is the first line of defense. While no contract can possibly cover every contingency and contracts are only as good as those who sign them when it comes right down to it, a good base contract is the best shield. 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

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    January 15, 2019 —
    Owners and contractors frequently treat liquidated damages provisions as an afterthought, but they deserve to be treated as a key deal term. If a contractor breaches a contract by failing to complete the work in a timely manner, the remedy is typically an agreed upon amount or rate of liquidated damages. Liquidated damages provisions seldom get more than a cursory, “back of the napkin” analysis, or worse, parties will simply plug in a number. This practice is dangerous because liquidated damages typically represent the owner’s sole remedy for delay and, more importantly, they are subject to attack and possible invalidation if certain legal standards are not met. The parties to a construction contract should never agree to an amount of liquidated damages without first attempting to forecast and calculate actual, potential damages. Reprinted courtesy of Trevor B. Potter, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    March 27, 2019 —
    The purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals. Introduction and Background Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement. Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com