BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Sunburg Minnesota tract home expert witness Sunburg Minnesota casino resort expert witness Sunburg Minnesota Medical building expert witness Sunburg Minnesota production housing expert witness Sunburg Minnesota Subterranean parking expert witness Sunburg Minnesota structural steel construction expert witness Sunburg Minnesota industrial building expert witness Sunburg Minnesota parking structure expert witness Sunburg Minnesota custom homes expert witness Sunburg Minnesota high-rise construction expert witness Sunburg Minnesota institutional building expert witness Sunburg Minnesota low-income housing expert witness Sunburg Minnesota mid-rise construction expert witness Sunburg Minnesota office building expert witness Sunburg Minnesota housing expert witness Sunburg Minnesota hospital construction expert witness Sunburg Minnesota custom home expert witness Sunburg Minnesota condominiums expert witness Sunburg Minnesota multi family housing expert witness Sunburg Minnesota concrete tilt-up expert witness Sunburg Minnesota landscaping construction expert witness Sunburg Minnesota
    Sunburg Minnesota window expert witnessSunburg Minnesota roofing construction expertSunburg Minnesota testifying construction expert witnessSunburg Minnesota contractor expert witnessSunburg Minnesota construction scheduling expert witnessSunburg Minnesota building expertSunburg Minnesota expert witness windows
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Sunburg, 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 Sunburg 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
    West Central Builders Assoc
    Local # 2432
    PO Box 447
    New London, MN 56273

    Sunburg Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Central Minnesota Builders Association
    Local # 2410
    1124 W Saint Germain St
    Saint Cloud, MN 56301

    Sunburg Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sunburg Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sunburg Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Sunburg Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Vikingland Builders Assoc
    Local # 2495
    509 22ND AVE E Ste 200
    Alexandria, MN 56308

    Sunburg Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Mid-Minnesota
    Local # 2450
    17068 Commercial Park Road
    Brainerd, MN 56401

    Sunburg Minnesota Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Sunburg Minnesota


    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Inside New York’s Newest Architectural Masterpiece for the Mega-Rich

    Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

    ACEC Research Institute Report: Real Risk of AI Isn’t Technology. It’s the Org Chart.

    TxDOT: Flatiron/Dragados Faces Default Over Bridge Design Issues

    Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

    The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?

    Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

    ASCE Statement On House Passage Of The Precip Act

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Lumber Drops to Nine-Month Low, Extending Retreat From Record

    Arbitration in Construction Disputes: Process and Best Practices

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    Five Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2025 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?

    Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA

    Coffee Beans, Mars and the 50 States: Civil Code 1542 Waivers and Latent Defects

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

    Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

    How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    When Logic Doesn’t Matter: Why ‘Irrational’ Isn’t a Ground to Overturn an Arbitration Award in Tennessee

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    These Roads Aren’t Built for Wilder Weather Driven by Climate Change

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

    Denver Airport Terminates P3 Contract For Main Terminal Renovation

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    School Blown Down by Wind Still Set to Open on Schedule

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Caltrans to Speak before California Senate regarding Bay Bridge Expansion

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    South Carolina School District Investigated by IRS and FBI

    Court Holds That One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims Under B&P Section 7031

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress
    Corporate Profile

    SUNBURG MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Sunburg, 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 Sunburg'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
    Sunburg, Minnesota

    Insured Does Not Prevail on Summary Judgment Motion Invoking Ensuing Loss Provision

    May 05, 2026 —
    The court denied the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding genuine issues of fact regarding implication of the policy’s ensuing loss provision. Stella Prop. Dev.. & Event Productions, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15854 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026). Stella owned a cultural center that was insured under a commercial property all-risk policy issued by Auto-Owners. A windstorm with gusts of 65 miles per hour struck the Center causing damage. The Center’s inspector found extensive wind damage on nearly all facets of the roof. Further, the inspector found the existing organic shingles were in “very poor condition” and were “defective, discontinued, and no longer available.” The estimated cost of repairs to the roof was $108,010.52. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

    July 13, 2026 —
    Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

    Insured General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage

    July 06, 2026 —
    The general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026). Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage. The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Builders Support Most of Bipartisan Housing Reform Bill in Congress

    March 31, 2026 —
    Several homebuilding groups say they support most of the massive housing reform bill making its way through Congress but want to see certain provisions including those related to build-to-rent and manufactured homes changed before it advances any further. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Esther D'Amico, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

    Two Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Selected as 2026 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    May 14, 2026 —
    SAN DIEGO – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that two attorneys in the San Diego office have been selected for inclusion in the 2026 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars publication. Rising Stars is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. To be eligible for inclusion, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger or in practice for 10 years or less. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research and peer nominations, with no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state named to the Rising Stars list. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

    Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict

    May 26, 2026 —
    PHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction. The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale. The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market. According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona. Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing. ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997. About Gray Development Group Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.

    Understanding the EPA’s Latest Proposed Drinking Water Contaminant Monitoring Rule, Published in Law360

    September 01, 2026 —
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) represents another step in the federal government’s ongoing effort to identify and evaluate emerging contaminants in drinking water. The proposal would require certain public water systems to monitor and report on 30 unregulated drinking water contaminants from 2028 through 2030, while generating occurrence data that could inform future regulation and affect environmental, commercial, litigation and risk assessments. In an article published by Law360, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel, Ayodeji Ayolola, analyzes the scope and practical implications of UCMR 6, including the contaminants selected, the proposed monitoring requirements for public water systems, and the EPA’s continued focus on PFAS and related organofluorine compounds. The article also touches upon the potential significance of publicly available monitoring data for businesses and property stakeholders. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects

    May 05, 2026 —
    Florida's construction defect landscape is experiencing a major shift. The convergence of material and labor cost volatility, regulatory tightening, and increasingly complex litigation strategies is forcing associations, developers, and their counsel to rethink how they approach risk management and dispute resolution. For those managing large-scale condo and high-rise projects, the stakes have never been higher. The Cost Volatility Trap Construction material prices rose at a "staggering" 12.6% annualized rate during the first two months of 2026, according to recent industry analysis. Tariff impacts are projected to lead to more increases of 5.4% to 6.8%, depending on property type. For associations facing construction defect claims, this volatility creates a cascading problem: repair scopes defined two years ago are now dramatically underpriced, and damage calculations that appeared reasonable at discovery are obsolete by the time of settlement. Courts and mediators are increasingly scrutinizing how cost estimates were developed and whether they account for existing market circumstances. Associations must now commission updated repair assessments more frequently, a practice that increases investigation costs but strengthens the credibility of damage claims. Conversely, defendants are weaponizing cost inflation as a defense, arguing that claimed damages are speculative or inflated. The practical result: repair sequencing and phasing strategies have become critical litigation tools. Associations that can demonstrate a rational, cost-effective repair plan tied to current market data are more favorably placed in settlement negotiations. Regulatory Pressure and Deliberate Timing Florida's 2026 condo compliance regime has significantly changed the defect claims landscape. Elevated transparency requirements, stricter reserve funding mandates, and tightened building safety inspection protocols mean that associations now face dual pressures: Comply with new regulations while simultaneously handling construction defect exposure. This regulatory environment is changing investigation and documentation strategy. Associations that delay defect investigation to avoid triggering reserve funding obligations or disclosure requirements are taking on considerable legal risk. Recent case law such as the Third District Court of Appeal's reaffirmation of Chapter 558's pre-suit mediation requirements, underscores Florida's intent to resolve disputes early. Associations that move deliberately and record carefully during the pre-suit phase gain leverage in mediation and reduce the risk of expensive litigation. Timing also intersects with repair sequencing. Associations must now balance the urgency of compliance inspections against the strategic advantage of phased repairs. Some associations are using compliance deadlines as a forcing mechanism to accelerate settlement discussions, while others are sequencing repairs to demonstrate good-faith remediation efforts before litigation commences. The Emerging Risk Transfer Challenge As construction defect claims grow more complex and costly, the traditional risk transfer systems, such as design-build warranties, contractor bonds, and insurance, are proving inadequate. Developers and general contractors are increasingly shifting risk to subcontractors and material suppliers, fragmenting liability and complicating recovery efforts for associations. Permitting and approval friction is also creating new litigation pressure points. Delays in municipal approvals, changes to building code interpretations, and disputes over remedial work compliance continue to spawn collateral claims that go beyond the original defect. Associations must now anticipate not only defect liability but also regulatory compliance disputes with municipalities, creating a dual-front legal challenge. For large communities, this means reconsidering the entire risk architecture. Insurance carriers are tightening coverage, and traditional indemnification chains are breaking down. Forward-thinking associations are engaging counsel earlier in the development process to negotiate clearer risk allocation provisions and more robust insurance requirements. Taking a Data-Driven Approach Managing rising costs and shifting legal risk in Florida's high-rise and condo market requires a more sophisticated, data-driven approach. Associations must commission frequent cost updates, move deliberately through pre-suit investigation and mediation, and challenge traditional assumptions about risk transfer. Developers and their counsel should view regulatory compliance not as a burden but as an opportunity to demonstrate good-faith risk management and strengthen settlement positioning. The firms and associations that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat cost volatility, regulatory change, and litigation strategy not as separate challenges but as linked elements of a coherent risk management framework. Stephen Hauptman is special counsel in Ball Janik LLP’s Fort Lauderdale office. He may be reached at shauptman@balljanik.com.