BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania concrete tilt-up expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania townhome construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania landscaping construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania Subterranean parking expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania parking structure expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania office building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania high-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania retail construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominium expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania hospital construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania tract home expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania casino resort expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania structural steel construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania low-income housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania custom homes expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominiums expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania mid-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania production housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania custom home expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania multi family housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania
    New Washington Pennsylvania construction expert witness public projectsNew Washington Pennsylvania building envelope expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania construction expert witnessesNew Washington Pennsylvania construction claims expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania construction claims expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania engineering consultantNew Washington Pennsylvania roofing and waterproofing expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    New Washington, Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 1875 stipulates that “no later than 90 days before filing an action, serve written notice of claim on the contractor. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 15 days to forward the claim to any subcontractor/supplier and 30 days after service of notice to offer to compromise and settle the claim by monetary payment without inspection, propose to inspect the dwelling that is the subject of the claim; or reject the claim. Contractor has 14 days after inspection to provide written notice of intention.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines New Washington Pennsylvania

    No state license required. For public works projects, see General Services website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Adams County
    Local # 3920
    PO Box 3321
    Gettysburg, PA 17325
    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Fayette County
    Local # 3961
    PO Box 1323
    Uniontown, PA 15401
    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Somerset Co Builders Association
    Local # 3958
    PO Box 221
    Berlin, PA 15530

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Franklin County Builders Association
    Local # 3912
    1102 Sheller Ave Ste C
    Chambersburg, PA 17201

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of Philadelphia
    Local # 3946
    1735 Market St Ste A432
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Chester & Delaware Co
    Local # 3941
    1502 McDaniel Dr
    West Chester, PA 19380

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    York County Builders Assn
    Local # 3972
    540 Greebriar Road
    York, PA 17404

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For New Washington Pennsylvania


    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    Modernist Houses Galore! [visual candy for architects]

    The Ghosts of Projects Past

    New Orleans Is Auctioning Off Vacant Lots Online

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Options When there is a Construction Lien on Your Property

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    Following My Own Advice

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building

    Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Top 10 Lessons Learned from a Construction Attorney

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    Mortgage Applications in U.S. Jump 11.6% as Refinancing Surges

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    Foreclosures Decreased Nationally in September

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin
    Corporate Profile

    NEW WASHINGTON PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 4500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the New Washington, Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to New Washington'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
    New Washington, Pennsylvania

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    June 10, 2015 —
    The employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015). Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace. Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    July 02, 2014 —
    Georgia small-business owner Julian Smith keeps hearing that the Obama administration’s latest climate regulations will drive up local electric bills. He doesn’t believe the prediction, but he isn’t arguing: The fears are doing wonders for his solar-panel installation company. “My phone is blowing up with new customers,” Smith, owner of SolarSmith LLC of Savannah, said in an interview. “It turns out that if you tell everybody the amount they will spend on electricity will skyrocket, they will believe you.” In Smith’s home state, as in the rest of the nation, businesses and consumers are struggling to size up competing claims about the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants, released June 2. The proposed regulations are among the most sweeping and complex in the EPA’s history, promising to revamp the way electricity has been generated and distributed for a century. Mr. Drajem may be contacted at mdrajem@bloomberg.net; Ms. Newkirk may be contacted at mnewkirk@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Drajem and Margaret Newkirk, Bloomberg

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    March 28, 2012 —

    California added about 8,900 construction jobs in January, 2012, as compared to December, 2011, leading the nation in the number of added construction jobs. Thirty-four other states also saw added construction jobs. A year prior, only twenty-eight states added construction jobs. The Associated General Contractors of America analyzed the monthly report from the Labor Department. Ken Simonson, the chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America noted that “the gains this January partly reflect very mild weather this winter and exceptionally cold and snowy conditions a year before.”

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    April 15, 2014 —
    On April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain. Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor

    March 19, 2014 —
    The U. S. District Court found there was no coverage for breach of contract claims against the contractor who walked off the job before completing the project. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Snider, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16920 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2014). The homeowners hired Jeff Beale to build their home for an approximate cost of $650,000. Beale said the job would take six to eight months and construction would be completed in early 2005. Construction did not begin, however, until April 2005. By 2005, the homeowners were becoming increasing displeased with Beale's progress. By March 2006, construction costs were approaching $800,000 and the home was not completed. The homeowners made progress payments on a monthly basis. Beale did not return to the home after April 2006 and another contractor was hired to complete the job. When the homeowners moved in, they discovered several construction defects, including a cracked retaining wall and water intrusion in many areas of the home. They paid over $150,000 to repair the defects, to complete work Beale left unfinished, and remove mold. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93

    April 25, 2012 —

    Randall E. Presley was a homebuilder in Southern California for more than thirty years, acting as head of Presley Development Company from 1956 until selling the firm to Lyon Homes in 1987. The two companies merged in 1991 as the Presley Cos. Mr. Presley saw the need in the 1950s to provide people in Southern California with low- to medium-priced quality homes.

    His firm built more than 160 communities and was among the ten largest homebuilding firms in the country, expanding beyond California. Mr. Presley was 93 when he succumbed to pneumonia. He is survived by a wife, three children, seven grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hotel Claims Construction Defect Could Have Caused Collapse

    December 30, 2013 —
    The owners of the Crowne Plaza New Orleans Airport, in Kenner, Louisiana, have filed a lawsuit claiming that a defective beam installed during renovations put the building at risk of collapse, reports The Louisiana Record. The hotel was sold to its current owners, 2929 Williams Blvd, LLC, in 2006, and the renovations began after Hurricane Katrina in 2007. The renovations converted an indoor pool area into a ballroom. The renovations were finished in 2008, but hotel staff noticed the walls and ceiling of the ballroom were sagging by September 2011. A structural engineer determined that a main beam had failed, risking collapse of the entire building. The hotel owners set upon repairing the structure and now seek reimbursement. 2929 Williams Blvd., LLC is suing Trimark Constructors LLC, Kyle Associates LLC, and Avengo Baily & Associates, Inc. for an unspecified amount of damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    December 09, 2011 —

    The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.

    Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.

    Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.

    The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”

    The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.

    The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of