BERT HOWE
  • production housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania custom homes expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania custom home expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania low-income housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania industrial building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania structural steel construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania hospital construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania retail construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania parking structure expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania multi family housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania mid-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania institutional building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominium expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania casino resort expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania concrete tilt-up expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania tract home expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania landscaping construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania townhome construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania high-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominiums expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania office building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania
    New Washington Pennsylvania construction expertsNew Washington Pennsylvania defective construction expertNew Washington Pennsylvania construction expert witness consultantNew Washington Pennsylvania slope failure expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania structural engineering expert witnessesNew Washington Pennsylvania consulting general contractorNew Washington Pennsylvania architectural 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


    BHA has a Nice Swing: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Maintenance Issues Ignite Arguments at Indiana School

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    Residential Construction Surges in Durham

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Construction Insurance Rates Up in the United States

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

    Designers “Airpocalyspe” Creations

    Florida trigger

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    The Flood Insurance Reform Act May be Extended to 2016
    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

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    December 30, 2013 —
    Construction defect claims in an Arizona community are time barred and so the judge had determined that National Fire & Marine Insurance is not liable for coverage. National Fire claimed that while there was no Arizona case law concerning statutes of limitations for equitable contributions by insurance carriers, the court agreed that “its position is directly supported by cases from other jurisdictions.” In the underlying construction defect case, Steadfast Insurance had settled with homeowners over allegations of construction defects. National Fire was a co-insurer and declined coverage. National Fire’s citing of two California cases was not unique for the Arizona courts. Other Arizona cases cited the same two California cases. Read the full story...

    City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

    October 25, 2013 —
    The city of Storm Lake, Iowa completed a $3.6 million sewer project only year ago, but the system is leaking untreated water into residents properties. The Pilot-Tribune reports that “not all the sewage lines broke,” but the city still needed to check the entire system for damage. The Southwest Shoreline Sanitary District has filed a lawsuit against Lessard Contracting, the firm that built the system. Bob Bergendoff, one of the sanitary district trustees said that “the main thing right now is whether the lines are properly installed.” Steve Anderson, another trustee, said that discussions with Lessard are getting “next to nowhere.” Read the full story...

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    March 26, 2014 —
    In Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result. Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda. At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story...

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    November 06, 2013 —
    Pennsylvania may soon change how it adopts changes to its implementation of the Uniform Construction Code, but it’s not clear which method will be adopted, as the Pennsylvania House and Senate have competing bills. In the Senate bill (SB1023), the only change would be that any changes to the Uniform Building Code made by the International Code Council would automatically become part of the Pennsylvania building code, unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania UCC Review and Advisory Council. Under current Pennsylvania law, changes are adopted only with a two-thirds approval of the RAC. The House bill (HB1209), separates the commercial code from the residential code. Under the House proposal, the RAC would reject changes to the commercial building code on a two-thirds vote, otherwise they would be adopted, but in the residential building code, changes would be rejected unless the RAC approved them by a two-thirds vote. Read the full story...

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    June 15, 2011 —

    On June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.

    Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.

    A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.

    The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.


    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    April 01, 2011 —

    The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

    The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.

    The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”

    S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

    Read the full story...


    Contractor Sues License Board

    June 30, 2011 —

    Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

    Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

    Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

    Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

    Read the court’s decision…


    Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

    March 31, 2014 —
    On the Insights Blog of CoreLogic, Molly Boesel reported that “housing-related spending made up 17.4 percent of GDP in [the] fourth quarter [of] 2013,” according to the latest release by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The numbers published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis demonstrated “upward revisions in overall GDP and housing-related expenditures from the second estimate released in February 2014.” Boesel explained how they determined the housing-related spending number: “To calculate the portion of domestic spending that is related to housing, we look at three expenditures from the release: residential investment (the construction of new single- and multi-family houses), spending on housing services (rent, owner’s equivalent rent and utilities) and spending on furnishings and durable goods. Together, these expenditures made up 17.4 percent of total real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2013, the same as this time a year ago and down from the high of 20.6 percent in the third quarter of 2005.” Read the full story...