BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Klawock Alaska production housing expert witness Klawock Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Klawock Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Klawock Alaska townhome construction expert witness Klawock Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Klawock Alaska office building expert witness Klawock Alaska low-income housing expert witness Klawock Alaska parking structure expert witness Klawock Alaska Medical building expert witness Klawock Alaska condominiums expert witness Klawock Alaska retail construction expert witness Klawock Alaska custom home expert witness Klawock Alaska tract home expert witness Klawock Alaska multi family housing expert witness Klawock Alaska industrial building expert witness Klawock Alaska casino resort expert witness Klawock Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Klawock Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Klawock Alaska housing expert witness Klawock Alaska hospital construction expert witness Klawock Alaska condominium expert witness Klawock Alaska
    Klawock Alaska expert witness roofingKlawock Alaska construction forensic expert witnessKlawock Alaska construction expertsKlawock Alaska soil failure expert witnessKlawock Alaska architectural expert witnessKlawock Alaska construction cost estimating expert witnessKlawock Alaska consulting general contractor
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Klawock, 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 Klawock Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Klawock Alaska


    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

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

    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

    Join: Computer Science Meets Construction

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

    Former Owner Not Liable for Defects Discovered After Sale

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    What is a Civil Dispute?

    Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

    SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2022 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis
    Corporate Profile

    KLAWOCK ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Klawock, Alaska Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Klawock's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Klawock, Alaska

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

    September 20, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

    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 full story...

    Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

    July 11, 2021 —
    It seems to be Miller Act time here at Construction Law Musings, not to mention in the Federal District Courts here in Virginia. Last week I discussed what sort of work can form the basis for a Miller Act claim. This week I am discussing the effect of a mandatory mediation contract clause on the same type of claim. I have discussed both the benefits and the possible negative consequences of the inclusion of such a clause in your construction contract. The recent case out of the Norfolk, Virginia Federal District Court recently explored the related question of whether such a clause can be enforced in the context of a Miller Act claim. In United States of America, for the use of Precision Air Conditioning of Brevard Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, the Court was confronted with a possible conflict between the legal requirement that any waiver of the right to pursue a Miller Act claim must be explicitly waived in writing and the clear contractual language between the general contractor and the plaintiff stating that mediation was a condition precedent to suit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

    August 30, 2021 —
    When it comes to resolving construction disputes it’s a bit like the “31 Flavors” of Baskin Robins. There’s a flavor for nearly everyone. From mediation, to arbitration, to litigation, to dispute resolution boards (DRBs), to the architect as the “initial decision maker” under AIA contracts, parties and their counsel have developed numerous ways to resolve disputes on construction projects, including by expert review. But if you’re going to agree to a dispute resolution procedure, make sure it’s one you can live with, because if you don’t, it’s often going to be too late to go back to the proverbial drawing board as the parties in the next case discovered. The Coral Farms Case In December 2010, a mudslide impacted three properties in San Juan Capistrano, California. One of the properties was owned by Coral Farms, L.P., another by Paul and Susan Mikos, and the third by Thomas and Sonya Mahony. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    November 01, 2021 —
    Beginning more than one century ago, owners and contractors generally have adopted the convention of including liquidated damages in their contracts to fix potential liability for delay (and other losses) at the inception of the project. The proliferation of liquidated damages clauses in modern contracts can be attributed to economic and legal factors. From the owner’s standpoint, it may be exceedingly difficult to prove the actual cost impact of a delayed completion of the project. A properly calculated liquidated damages rate would save the owner the significant expense of quantifying its delay damages. On the contractor’s side, a reasonable amount of liquidated damages may be preferable to uncapped or unknown liability, allowing the contractor to more accurately price its bid and efficiently allocate risk. Coinciding with, or perhaps a leading cause of, the industry’s embrace of liquidated damages provisions, was the shift in courts throughout the country from disfavoring such clauses to accepting them (within limits) as an appropriate exercise of contract rights. While some variation exists among the states, courts have generally recognized that liquidated damages clauses are a viable alternative to proof of actual loss so long as (i) actual losses were difficult to quantify, and (ii) the stipulated sum bears a reasonable relationship to the anticipated loss at the time of contracting. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356. Conversely, a clause that penalizes the breaching party rather than serving as an estimate of probable loss is likely to be found unenforceable. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP
    Mr. Tuckman may be contacted at atuckman@watttieder.com

    Material Prices Climb…And Climb…Are You Considering A Material Escalation Provision?

    May 31, 2021 —
    As you may know, material prices have been climbing. And they continue to climb based on the volatility of the material market. On top of that, there are lead times in getting material due to supply chain and other related concerns. The question is, how are you addressing these risks? These are risks that need to be addressed in your contract. As it relates to climbing material prices, one consideration is a material escalation provision. The objective of this provision is to address the volatility of the material market in economic climates, such as today’s climate, where the price of material continues to climb. Locking down a material price today will be different than locking down the same price months from today. This volatility and risk impacts pricing and budgets. Naturally, an owner and contractor would like to be in a position to lock down supplier prices as soon as possible—both to secure pricing and to account for items with long lead times or that recent data forecasts a long lead time due to supply chain concerns. However, this is not always possible or practical and can depend on numerous issues such as when the owner contracts with the contractor, when the owner issues the notice to proceed (and permits are issued), final construction documents and revisions to the construction documents, the type of material, whether there is staging or storage available for the materials, and the current status including climitazation of the project. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    May 31, 2021 —
    In the 2020-2021 session, the Georgia General Assembly amended existing laws to expand state and local governments’ authority to enter conservation projects. In connection with these projects, the contractor guarantees that cost savings or revenue increases will cover any payments for the project. Read more about conservation projects, including Guaranteed Energy Savings Performance Contracts With regard to school systems, conservation projects had previously included facility alterations designed to reduce energy or water consumption or operation costs. But the new law expands the permitted projects to include equipment purchases used in new construction or building retrofit, addition, or renovation. It also adds training programs incidental to the contract. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

    August 10, 2021 —
    Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...