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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Grayling Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709
    http://www.InteriorABA.com

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    609 S KNIK GOOSE BAY RD STE G
    Wasilla, AK 99654
    http://www.matsuhomebuilders.com

    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518
    http://www.buildersofalaska.com

    Home Builders Association of Anchorage
    Local # 0215
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518
    http://www.buildersofalaska.com

    Kenai Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 0233
    PO Box 1753
    Kenai, AK 99611
    http://www.kenaipeninsulabuilders.com

    Northern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0225
    9085 Glacier Highway Ste 202
    Juneau, AK 99801
    http://www.seabia.com

    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901
    http://www.sealaskabuilders.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Grayling Alaska

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

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

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    Some Insurers Dismissed, Others Are Not in Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

    Randy Okland Honored as 2019 Intermountain Legacy Award Winner

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    2021 2Q Cost Report: Industry Execs Believe Recovery Is in Full Swing

    Good News on Prices for Some Construction Materials

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes
    Corporate Profile

    GRAYLING ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    With over 4500 construction and design related expert witness designations, the Grayling, Alaska Construction Expert Directory delivers a comprehensive construction and design expert support solution to construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides construction claims and trial support services to the industry's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, real estate investment trusts, risk managers, owners, as well as a variety of municipalities and government offices. Utilizing in house assets which include building envelope experts, forensic architects, professional engineers, credentialed construction standard of care consultants, the firm brings specialized expertise and local capabilities to the Grayling region.

    Grayling Alaska construction safety expertGrayling Alaska forensic architectGrayling Alaska window expert witnessGrayling Alaska expert witness roofingGrayling Alaska construction defect expert witnessGrayling Alaska defective construction expertGrayling Alaska concrete expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Grayling, Alaska

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    July 19, 2021 —
    Fights between contractors can be a bit like Mad magazine’s “Spy vs. Spy” with each side trying to out outwit and one-up one another. The next case, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Built Pacific, Inc., Case No. D076601 (March 15, 2021), is a case in point. The Built Pacific Case Built Pacific, Inc. was a subcontractor to Austin Sundt Joint Venture on a public works project known as the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Project. In 2015, following an investigation by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), the DLSE issued a Civil Wage Penalty Assessment of $119,319.76 based on Built Pacific’s failure to pay prevailing wages. The DLSE also named Austin Sundt in the Civil Wage Assessment pursuant to Labor Code 1743 which makes contractors and subcontractors jointly and severally liable for wage violations. As a result of the Civil Wage Assessment, Austin Sundt withheld approximately $70,000 in retention from Built Pacific. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires

    August 23, 2021 —
    Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and local governments have adopted varying moratoria on evictions, enacted as emergency legislative protections for tenants facing eviction. The federal moratorium on eviction, promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is set to expire on July 31. While the Supreme Court recently left the moratorium in place, the Court signaled that it would likely be held unconstitutional if extended and challenged again. With the sole federal moratorium expiring, state and local protections may remain in effect; however, many of these local orders are also beginning to expire. Washington, DC’s eviction moratorium, one of the most tenant-friendly pieces of emergency legislation in the country, is one such example, beginning a phaseout process that allows the pace of evictions to slowly begin throughout 2021 before a final legislative sunset in February 2022. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council of the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser enacted a series of public health emergency legislation. Under the Coronavirus Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, the Council put a pause on evictions for nonpayment of rent or violations of lease provisions, prohibiting landlords from filing a complaint to evict a tenant who detained “possession of real property without right” or whose “right to possession has ceased.” Under the moratorium, the Council effectively banned residential evictions, unless a court found that a tenant had performed an “illegal act” within the rental unit, that the tenant was causing undue hardship on the health, welfare, and safety of other tenants or neighbors, or that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The moratorium and other tenant-protections were initially set to remain in place indefinitely, expiring 60 days after the end of Mayor Bowser’s declared COVID-19 emergency period. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

    September 29, 2021 —
    In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    July 05, 2021 —
    In one of the first civil jury trials to proceed live in Los Angeles Superior Court during Covid, Aneta Freeman obtained a rare directed verdict and nonsuit in a complex, high exposure action, after seven days of trial. The dismissal was obtained after the parties rested after the liability phase of the bifurcated trial. Ms. Freeman represented a general contractor in an action in which Plaintiff alleged that the general contractor and the County of Los Angeles (which was dismissed earlier on statutory immunity grounds) created a dangerous condition when they allegedly allowed mosquitos to breed in 2015 during construction at a flood retention basin in Marina Del Rey. Plaintiff contracted West Nile Virus, and subsequently developed myasthenia gravis and a myriad of other conditions and ailments. Plaintiff relied heavily on a 2015 report from the Los Angeles West Vector Control District which suggested that the construction was the source of mosquitos which resulted in a “cluster” of West Nile Virus cases in the Marina Del Rey and surrounding areas. In pretrial motions, Ms. Freeman successfully excluded that report, opinion testimony from the vector control former executive director, narrowed the scope of plaintiff’s entomologist testimony, and excluded Brad Avrit from testifying for the Plaintiff on construction standard of care. The matter proceeded with a stipulated a 10 person jury, and all participants socially distanced and masked throughout the trial. Witnesses appeared live, with the exception of Plaintiff’s entomologist, portions of whose video deposition were played. Following seven days of trial after both parties rested, Judge Mark Young granted the general contractor’s nonsuit and also, in the alternative, a directed a verdict for our client. Plaintiff had demanded $10,000,000 of the County and the general contractor globally prior to trial, and $5,000,000 from the general contractor. The general contractor issued two CCP 998s, which were ignored by Plaintiff. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aneta B. Freeman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb
    Ms. Freeman may be contacted at afreeman@cgdrlaw.com

    New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

    September 06, 2021 —
    Tenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site. An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there. Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    Anticipatory Repudiation of a Contract — The Prospective Breach

    July 05, 2021 —
    There are instances where a party can engage in the anticipatory repudiation of their obligations under a contract. In essence, this is basically a party prospectively breaching the contract by repudiating their obligations in the contract. A prospective breach of contract occurs where there is absolute repudiation by one of the parties prior to the time when his performance is due under the terms of the contract. Such a repudiation may be evidenced by words or voluntary acts but the refusal must be distinct, unequivocal, and absolute. Moreover, repudiation can be shown where one party makes additional demands not included in the initial agreement:
    The law is clear that where one party to the contract arbitrarily demands performance not required by the contract and couples this demand with a refusal to further perform unless the demand is met, the party has anticipatorily repudiated the contract, which anticipatory repudiation relieves the non-breaching party of its duty to further perform and creates in it an immediate cause of action for breach of contract. 24 Hr Air Service, Inc. v. Hosanna Community Baptist Church, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly, D1344a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (quotations and citations omitted).
    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

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    October 24, 2021 —
    The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (the “PRO Act”) is a proposed law that would dramatically rewrite the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Breathtakingly broad in scope, the PRO Act targets several longstanding features of existing law perceived by unions and labor activists to be unfair to labor and too favorable to employers. The proposed legislation is essentially a grab-bag of grievances that the labor movement has compiled over decades and sought to change through legislation and before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) without success in the past. While the PRO Act would affect virtually all private sector employers, it would alter the labor dynamic in the construction industry in four major ways: 1. Removing the current prohibitions on secondary, jurisdictional, and other forms of picketing. Current law attempts to balance the rights of employers to operate their businesses without unnecessary interference with the rights of unions to protest concerning wages and working conditions. As part of this balancing act, the NLRA prohibits unions from picketing under certain conditions or with certain aims. These restrictions include the prohibition on “secondary” picketing by unions of neutral employers, which are employers with which the union does not have a direct labor dispute, and “jurisdictional” picketing by unions to force an employer to assign certain work to a specific trade or group of employees. The elimination of these restrictions in the PRO Act would have a significant impact on the construction industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew M. MacDonald, Fox Rothschild LLP
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at amacdonald@foxrothschild.com

    Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules

    July 19, 2021 —
    A Florida congresswoman called for stricter federal building-safety standards on Thursday to prevent a repeat of the condominium collapse that killed at least 60 people and left dozens more missing in her state. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat whose congressional district includes the condo development in Surfside, said more buildings could collapse or break down as they age and the federal government needed to have a “minimum floor” of safety requirements. “We do have standards that are tangentially related at the federal level and so I do think it’s important to look into what standards should be adopted at the national level, at a minimum, because this is a tragedy of epic proportions,” she said on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power” with David Westin. “We can’t allow this to ever happen again.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker Purifoy, Bloomberg