BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home expert witness Taylor Alabama hospital construction expert witness Taylor Alabama townhome construction expert witness Taylor Alabama custom homes expert witness Taylor Alabama office building expert witness Taylor Alabama housing expert witness Taylor Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Taylor Alabama landscaping construction expert witness Taylor Alabama production housing expert witness Taylor Alabama condominiums expert witness Taylor Alabama industrial building expert witness Taylor Alabama tract home expert witness Taylor Alabama institutional building expert witness Taylor Alabama parking structure expert witness Taylor Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Taylor Alabama Medical building expert witness Taylor Alabama multi family housing expert witness Taylor Alabama high-rise construction expert witness Taylor Alabama condominium expert witness Taylor Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Taylor Alabama low-income housing expert witness Taylor Alabama retail construction expert witness Taylor Alabama
    Taylor Alabama construction cost estimating expert witnessTaylor Alabama construction project management expert witnessTaylor Alabama contractor expert witnessTaylor Alabama expert witness commercial buildingsTaylor Alabama consulting engineersTaylor Alabama architect expert witnessTaylor Alabama hospital construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Taylor, 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 Taylor Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tallapoosa Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0186
    714 Commerce Drive
    Alexander City, AL 35010
    Taylor Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Tuscaloosa
    Local # 0188
    2009 Paul W Bryant Dr
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35401

    Taylor Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Chilton County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0117
    209 Parliament Parkway
    Maylene, AL 35114
    Taylor Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Lee Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0136
    528 Lafayette Pl
    Auburn, AL 36830
    Taylor Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Phenix City
    Local # 0172
    1808 Opelika Road
    Phenix City, AL 36867
    Taylor Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Associated Home Builders of Greater Birmingham
    Local # 0116
    5000 Grantswood Road Ste 240
    Irondale, AL 35210

    Taylor Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Taylor Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Taylor Alabama


    Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their San Antonio Office

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    Good Signs for Housing Market in 2013

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

    Excess Insurer On The Hook For Cleanup Costs At Seven Industrial Sites

    More Business Value from Drones with Propeller and Trimble – Interview with Rory San Miguel

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

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

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    #7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!
    Corporate Profile

    TAYLOR ALABAMA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Taylor, 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Taylor'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
    Taylor, Alabama

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    December 16, 2019 —
    In Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container. In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four years later to discover water damage to the contents. They sued the storage company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract; tortious breach of covenant; negligence; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750. The storage company’s insurer intervened and moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The appeals court affirmed. The storage company’s contract contained a release of liability stating that personal property was stored “at the customer’s sole risk” and the owners “shall not be liable for any damage or loss,” including water damage. Further, the contract stated that the containers were not waterproof, and again that the storage company was not liable for water damage. The contract attached an addendum further stating that the owner was “a landlord renting space, is not a warehouseman, and does not take custody of my property.” The addendum went on with an acknowledgement that the owner: “2. Is not responsible for loss or damage to my property; 3. Does not provide insurance on my property for me; and 4. Requires that I provide my own insurance coverage or be ‘Self-Insured’ (personally assume risk of loss or damage).” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    December 22, 2019 —
    The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    December 02, 2019 —
    The building and construction industry is a significant consumer of non-renewable energy resources and is contributing to changing the earth’s environment in damaging and irreversible ways. These impacts are being felt in climate-related shifts that include increases in the earth’s average temperature and rising sea levels. A new report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable global temperature data is available. The three hottest years on record were 2015, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, the rise in sea levels is causing “nuisance floods” to become more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the United States grew from two per year to nearly 12. These and other environmental impacts underscore the urgency of battling climate change and how critical it is for all industries—including construction—to stem the tide on this issue. Reducing embodied energy in the built environment is one way the building and construction sector can do its part to address one of the major challenges of this century. Reprinted courtesy of Brent Trenga, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Trenga may be contacted at brent.trenga@kingspan.com

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    August 13, 2019 —
    Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    December 09, 2019 —
    Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    December 16, 2019 —
    The appellate court found that the insurer's quote created an issue of fact on whether loss caused by a computer hacker would be covered. Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2019 Ind. App. LEXIS 355 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2019). The insureds, Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC ("LLC's") discovered that their bank accounts had been hacked and over $78,000 stolen. They submitted claims to their insurer, Cincinnati. Coverage was denied, and the LLCs filed suit. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati. The "Forgery or Alternation" coverage applied to losses resulting directly from the "'forgery' or alteration of checks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, order or directions to pay a sum of money." "Forgery" was defined as "the signing of the name of another person or organization with the intent to deceive." The LLCs did not cite any evidence that the hacker "signed" anything, let alone that they signed "the name of another person or organization." 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

    Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

    January 06, 2020 —
    It is common in construction for a subcontractor or material supplier of any tier to be required to provide a lien waiver when receiving payment. But not all lien waivers are created equal. While at a minimum, a lien waiver, by definition, needs to include a release of liens, it can also include many other terms that can tie up loose ends or resolve potential problems before they begin. Additional Releases A typical lien release is going to release any liens and right to claim liens on the subject property. But a lien waiver can also include releases of any claims against surety bonds, other statutory rights or claims, and at its broadest, claims against the paying party. One example of a provision that could help accomplish this is a release of “any right arising from a payment bond that complies with a state or federal statute, any common law payment bond right, any claim for payment, and any rights under any similar ordinance, rule, or statute related to claim or payment rights.” Broad release language can also be used to effectively preclude any claims arising prior to the date of the release. Payment Representations and Warranties A typical lien release has no representations or warranties about payment to subcontractors or material suppliers of a lower tier. But contractors can include language requiring the company receiving payment to represent and warrant that all subcontractors of a lower tier have been paid or will be paid within a certain timeframe using the funds provided and that these are material representations and inducements into providing payment. On a related note, if the contract requires subcontractors to provide lien releases from lower tier subcontractors in addition to their own release when seeking payment, contractors can require the sub-subcontractor releases to include representations that they have been paid by the subcontractor to try and tie up payment loose ends all around. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Lambert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Lambert may be contacted at jason.lambert@nelsonmullins.com

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    November 04, 2019 —
    “Claims-made policies are common in the professional liability insurance market. They “differ from traditional ‘occurrence’-based policies primarily based upon the scope of the risk against which they insure.” With claims-made policies, coverage is provided only where the act giving rise to coverage “is discovered and brought to the attention of the insurance company during the period of the policy.” In contrast, coverage is provided under an occurrence-based policy if the act giving rise to coverage “occurred during the period of the policy, regardless of the date a claim is actually made against the insured.” “The essence, then, of a claims-made policy is notice to the carrier within the policy period.” Crowely Maritime Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2019 WL 3294003 (11thCir. 2019) The recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal opinion in Crowely Maritime Corp. discussed the distinction between a claims-made insurance policy and an occurrence-based insurance policy. Professional liability policies are generally claims-made policies whereas commercial general liability policies are generally occurrence-based policies. While this opinion does not involve a construction matter, the case did concern the definition of a “claim” in a claims-made policy and whether such claim was timely reported to the insurer within the discovery period / extended reporting period. 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