BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing expert witness Bena Minnesota retail construction expert witness Bena Minnesota office building expert witness Bena Minnesota high-rise construction expert witness Bena Minnesota landscaping construction expert witness Bena Minnesota industrial building expert witness Bena Minnesota parking structure expert witness Bena Minnesota production housing expert witness Bena Minnesota multi family housing expert witness Bena Minnesota casino resort expert witness Bena Minnesota Subterranean parking expert witness Bena Minnesota concrete tilt-up expert witness Bena Minnesota custom home expert witness Bena Minnesota condominium expert witness Bena Minnesota custom homes expert witness Bena Minnesota Medical building expert witness Bena Minnesota structural steel construction expert witness Bena Minnesota low-income housing expert witness Bena Minnesota condominiums expert witness Bena Minnesota institutional building expert witness Bena Minnesota hospital construction expert witness Bena Minnesota townhome construction expert witness Bena Minnesota
    Bena Minnesota hospital construction expert witnessBena Minnesota roofing and waterproofing expert witnessBena Minnesota construction safety expertBena Minnesota building expertBena Minnesota eifs expert witnessBena Minnesota roofing construction expertBena Minnesota construction expert witness consultant
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Bena, Minnesota

    Minnesota Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Statutory warranties for one-year, two-year and ten-year periods limits types of construction defects actionable under warranty law; This statute (Chapter 327A) limits liability and excludes normal wear and tear, normal shrinkage caused by drying of the dwelling, loss due to insufficient ventilation, loss or damage from negligence, improper maintenance, or alteration to dwelling, loss or damage from failure to maintain or failure to mitigate


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Bena Minnesota

    Residential contractors need to be licensed. If you work in two or more trades, certain trades will require a license. Call the state for details.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    South Central Builders Association
    Local # 2412
    575 Havana Rd
    Owatonna, MN 55060
    Bena Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Rochester Area Builders Inc
    Local # 2465
    108 Elton Hills Lane NW
    Rochester, MN 55901

    Bena Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Minnesota River Builders Association
    Local # 2487
    443 Belgrade Avenue
    North Mankato, MN 56003

    Bena Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Crow River Builders Association Affil w/National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 2424
    PO Box 656
    Hutchinson, MN 55350

    Bena Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Minnesota
    Local # 2400
    525 Park St Ste 150
    Saint Paul, MN 55103

    Bena Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of the Twin Cities
    Local # 2433
    2960 Centre Pointe Drive
    Roseville, MN 55113

    Bena Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    West Central Builders Assoc
    Local # 2432
    PO Box 447
    New London, MN 56273

    Bena Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Bena Minnesota


    Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

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

    Las Vegas Team Obtains Complete Dismissal of a Traumatic Brain Injury Claim

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Multifamily Building Pushes New Jersey to Best Year since 2007

    Contractor Entitled to Defense in Suit Filed by Performance Bond Carrier

    What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/21/24) – REITs Show Their Strength, Energy Prices Increase Construction Costs and CRE Struggles to Keep Pace

    Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

    $10.5M Settlement Ends George Washington Bridge Debris Liability Fight

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Returns as a Sponsor at the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio

    A Construction Stitch in Time

    New Survey Reveals Overwhelmingly Optimistic Results on the Use of AI in Construction

    Court Finds California FAIR Plan Unlawful

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Coverage Gap Dispute

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    Colorado Supreme Court Finds Economic Loss Rule Applies to Allegations of Willful and Wanton Conduct

    You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Prison Contractors Did Not Follow the Law

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Fire Protection You Can Trust Starts With the Right Testing

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    New Florida Law Adds Licensing Risk to Contractor/Subcontractor Payment Disputes

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    White and Williams LLP Attorneys Recognized as PA and DE Super Lawyers

    Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

    The Conscious Builder – Interview with Casey Grey

    Detroit Craftsmen Sift House Rubble in Quest for Treasured Wood

    Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Insurer’s Federal Suit Dismissed in Favor of Insured’s State Suit

    BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    Court or Arbitration? Why Contractors Can’t Afford to Get this Wrong
    Corporate Profile

    BENA MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Bena, Minnesota Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 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 Bena'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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Bena, Minnesota

    SDV Celebrates 30th Anniversary Press Release

    April 08, 2026 —
    Trumbull, Connecticut – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. (SDV) is proud to announce the celebration of its 30th anniversary. Founded in 1996 by three attorneys in a small New Haven, Connecticut office, SDV was built on a clear and focused mission: representing policyholders in insurance coverage matters. Three decades later, that commitment remains at the core of the firm’s identity and has been instrumental in its continued success and reputation nationwide. Today, SDV is a nationally recognized boutique firm with 50 attorneys serving policyholders across the United States. Building on its longstanding reputation for excellence and client advocacy, the firm is pleased to announce the opening of its newest office in Massachusetts—an exciting milestone that reflects SDV’s continued growth. The new office is led by Managing Partner Anna Perry. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.

    Fraud Allegations Stymie Additional Insured’s Request for a Defense

    May 14, 2026 —
    The Federal District Court granted the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s complaint seeking a defense of the underlying case alleging fraud. Renovation Realty, Inc. v. Colony Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21409 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026). Mara Fortin sued Renovation Realty and others (“Fortin litigation”) from the fraudulent sale of a residence. The underlying complaint alleged Renovation “deliberately misrepresented of the residence as ‘completely remodeled’ and ‘meticulously maintained’.” The defendants, however, including Renovation, “knew from sources including a pre-renovation termite report documenting fungus and dry rot . . . that the Property harbored pre-existing material defects.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    ACEC Supports BUILD America 250 Act as Important First Step on Surface Reauthorization

    May 26, 2026 —
    WASHINGTON -- The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the business voice of America’s engineering and design services industry released the following statement on the BUILD America 250 Act: "Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen have taken an important bipartisan step toward reauthorizing the federal surface transportation programs that are critical to economic growth in every state. The BUILD America 250 Act provides five years of stability in funding road and transit projects, raises new revenues to address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and includes meaningful provisions to strengthen project delivery, advance digital infrastructure, and improve the contracting framework that engineering firms rely on every day. ACEC will continue to advocate for investment levels that keep pace with the country's growing infrastructure needs, and we urge the Committee to keep this process moving forward." The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of America’s engineering industry, representing more than 5,500 independent engineering firms and more than 650,000 professionals throughout the United States engaged in the development of America’s transportation, water, and energy infrastructure, along with environmental, industrial, and other public and private facilities. Founded in 1906 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., ACEC is a national federation of 51 state and regional organizations.

    Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision

    April 20, 2026 —
    A recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted). The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id. In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Seattle Team Obtains Summary Judgment in Real Estate Broker Professional Liability Action

    July 20, 2026 —
    Seattle Partner Kathleen A. Nelson and Associate Synova M. L. Edwards prevailed on a hotly contested motion for summary judgment in Whatcom County, Washington court in a real estate broker professional liability action. The plaintiff filed an action against Lewis Brisbois' clients, a real estate agent and brokerage firm, among several others, including the title company, purchasers and others related to the sale of real property following his complicated and long running divorce action. These claims primarily arose out of the clients’ reliance on an order signed by the court in the underlying divorce action. The order allowed the clients to execute the purchase and sale agreement, as the plaintiff was non-cooperative. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Integration Can Inoculate in Utah

    July 20, 2026 —
    The Utah Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed, in the construction context, Utah’s strict approach to enforcing integration clauses to preclude parol evidence and other legal theories that would vary the written terms of a contract. In Reid v. All Surface LC, 2025 UT App 134, decided last September, the court affirmed in all respects the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the strength of an integration clause against a homeowner who sued a contractor for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. More recently, however, the same court rejected those same arguments in Tidwell v. Jensen, 2026 UT App 13 as to tort claims arising from a used car sale. The facts in Reid were sympathetic to the plaintiff. After being told she had a mold issue near a defective basement shower, the plaintiff solicited bids. A remediation contractor advised that while it could address the mold, the shower replacement should be handled by someone else. The plaintiff contacted All Surface LC, a shower replacement contractor. During an interview, the sales representative stated that All Surface could “do full mold remediation, tear everything out, and reframe the shower.” The plaintiff ultimately retained All Surface, expecting it would both resolve the mold issues and replace the shower. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com

    Cuomo Bridge Lawsuit Adversaries Weigh Mediated Settlement

    July 06, 2026 —
    Rival legal teams have reached a critical juncture as they consider a mediated settlement in one of two major payment lawsuits pending between a design-build contracting team and the New York State Thruway Authority over construction of the more than $3-billion Mario M. Cuomo Bridge north of New York City. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split

    May 14, 2026 —
    Advertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests. Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP, David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com Read the full story...