BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia custom home expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia casino resort expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia townhome construction expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia parking structure expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia production housing expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia institutional building expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia condominiums expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia condominium expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia retail construction expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia low-income housing expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia office building expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia multi family housing expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia tract home expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia hospital construction expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia housing expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Wilsondale West Virginia
    Wilsondale West Virginia civil engineering expert witnessWilsondale West Virginia construction expert witnessesWilsondale West Virginia delay claim expert witnessWilsondale West Virginia construction expertsWilsondale West Virginia architectural expert witnessWilsondale West Virginia contractor expert witnessWilsondale West Virginia expert witness windows
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Wilsondale, West Virginia

    West Virginia Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB440: Requires builders notify homeowners with Notice to consumer required; response to claim within 30 days and negotiations to conclude within 90 days.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Wilsondale West Virginia

    In 1991, the West Virginia Legislature adopted into law Chapter 21, Article 11 of the State Code. This law was established to set specific professional guidelines for contractors as well as to protect state businesses and consumers who utilize their services. The new law paved the way for creation of the Contractor Licensing Board which is made up of state businessmen, contractors and construction specialists.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Greater Greenbrier Valley Home Builders Chapter
    Local # 5027
    PO Box 180
    Frankford, WV 24938
    Wilsondale West Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Southern W Virginia
    Local # 5080
    PO Box 667
    Beckley, WV 25802
    Wilsondale West Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of West Virginia (State)
    Local # 5000
    2220 Washington St. E Ste 1
    Charleston, WV 25311

    Wilsondale West Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Charleston
    Local # 5018
    PO Box 8616
    South Charleston, WV 25303

    Wilsondale West Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Tri State Home Builders Association
    Local # 5036
    PO Box 376
    Barboursville, WV 25504

    Wilsondale West Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Midwestern Chapter Of National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 5040
    110 Pleasant Colony Dr
    Evans, WV 25241
    Wilsondale West Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Potomac Highlands Chapter of National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 5030
    PO Box 452
    Mathias, WV 26812
    Wilsondale West Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Wilsondale West Virginia


    2025 Construction Outlook: Growth, But Uneven in Certain Areas

    Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

    Seven Coats Rose Attorneys Named to Texas Rising Stars List

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Oklahoma Limits Claims for Construction Cases

    Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Unintended Consequences of New Building Products and Services

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

    Freight Train Carrying Hot Asphalt, Molten Sulfur Plunges Into Yellowstone River as Bridge Fails

    Liquidated Damages: A Dangerous Afterthought

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    Include Contract Clauses for Protection Against Ever-Evolving Construction Challenges

    DOI Aims to Modernize its “Inefficient and Inflexible” Type A Natural Resource Damages Assessment Regulations

    The Insurance Coverage Debate on Construction Defects Continues

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2025 New York – Metro Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Chambers USA Recognizes GRSM as 2026 Industry Leader

    Contractor Suffolk's Hospital Project Is on Critical List After Steward Health Care Bankruptcy

    Wearable Ways to Work in Extreme Heat

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Building a Strong ESG Program Can Fuel Growth and Reduce Company Risk

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment, in Part, After Partial Payment of Claim
    Corporate Profile

    WILSONDALE WEST VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Wilsondale, West Virginia 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Wilsondale'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
    Wilsondale, West Virginia

    Turning Expert Services into Products

    July 20, 2026 —
    A Finnish engineering, architecture, and project consulting company, AINS Group, recently opened an online store to purchase fixed-price services. The store presents specialist work in a product-like format, with fixed service names, defined scopes, and visible prices, such as a building history report, a zoning plan cost analysis, and a technical preliminary survey for a property transaction. Is this productization a smart move or a sign that expert services are being commoditized? Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Bridging the Gap at Alaska’s Juneau Creek

    September 21, 2026 —
    The largest single-span steel plate girder bridge launch in the nation wasn’t about setting records. Alaska’s Juneau Creek Bridge design was a matter of necessity. The fully erected steel plate girder bridge, featuring a 440-ft main span hovering 285 ft above the Juneau Creek, was part of the larger Sterling Highway project. It offered a logistical challenge but was chosen among over a dozen bridge types due to the unique constraints brought by the mountainous site. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

    Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers in Construction Litigation

    May 14, 2026 —
    A recent decision from the Washington Court of Appeals provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction over foreign product manufacturers in construction and infrastructure litigation. In King County v. Aquatherm GmbH, No. 85572-7-I (Wash.Ct. App.Div.I)(unpublished), the court addressed whether a German manufacturer could be sued in Washington for alleged defects in piping used in major public infrastructure projects. The ruling offers a detailed, fact-driven roadmap for how Washington courts evaluate jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers operating through layered distribution networks. It also reflects a broader trend toward focusing on real-world commercial conduct rather than formal corporate structure. Background of the Case King County sued after widespread failures in polypropylene piping installed at the King County Correctional Facility. The pipe, manufactured by Aquatherm GmbH in Germany, was marketed, distributed, and installed through a network of U.S.-based entities. Following a six-week trial, the jury returned a verdict exceeding $18 million on claims under the Washington Product Liability Act and Consumer Protection Act. Aquatherm challenged, among other things, the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Repass, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Miki J. Saito, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Repass may be contacted at trepass@wshblaw.com Ms. Saito may be contacted at msaito@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

    Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder

    July 06, 2026 —
    When purchasing a home from a homebuilder, there is an important consideration when it comes to the limited warranty you receive around the time you close on the home. That limited warranty likely includes an arbitration provision requiring you to arbitrate your disputes, such as construction defect claims, against the homebuilder. That arbitration provision will most likely include all claims, including statutory claims (such as a statutory violation of a building code claim), requiring you to arbitrate, as opposed to litigate, your disputes against the homebuilder. This is an important consideration. If the arbitration provision does not allow you to arbitrate all of your claims, and eliminates your rights to legitimate statutory claims, the arbitration provision could be unenforceable. By way of example, in a residential construction defect dispute, Anderson v. Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., 223 So.3d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), the appeal turned on whether the arbitration provision in the homebuilder’s limited warranty was valid. The homeowners took possession of their home in 2009. In 2015, the homeowners served a Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects that included a statutory violation of a building code claim under Florida Statute §553.84. The limited warranty included an arbitration provision that specified it was the “exclusive remedy” for all disputes arising out of or related to the warranty or issues with the home and property. When read together with the warranty’s disclaimer that precluded claims not covered by the warranty “whether in contract, tort, or otherwise,” the statutory building code violation claim could not be remedied through arbitration because it fell outside the warranty’s coverage. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Inaccurate Representations Can Lead to Differing Site Conditions Claim

    May 26, 2026 —
    In the prior posting, I discussed a case dealing with a differing site condition. In that case, the owner did not have an affirmative duty to make a representation and there was no inaccurate representation made by the owner that misled the contractor. Well, what about when there is an inaccurate misrepresentation regarding the site? This was the circumstance in an older Florida case where a dredging contractor had a successful differing site conditions claim. See Jacksonville Port Authority v. Parkhill-Goodloe, Co., Inc., 362 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The government provided inaccurate information as to the lack of rock that would be encountered during the dredging that was relied on by the dredging contractor. But the government had “superior knowledge” that there was rock in an adjacent location based on a prior claim from a contractor, yet the government did not disclose the possibility that rock could be encountered. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    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.

    Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

    April 14, 2026 —
    A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
    A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
    “The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
    “[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
    Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Kahana Feld Obtains Favorable Result in High-Exposure NY Premises Liability Case

    June 15, 2026 —
    Kahana Feld partner Leigh Katz obtained a significant victory in a recent matter involving a videotaped alleged trip and fall on the sidewalk in front of the client’s commercial residence. The plaintiff claimed he suffered a knee injury that necessitated surgery, along with other assorted injuries that prevented him from continuing high-level athletic activities. Leigh was able to demonstrate that the fall was staged and received a voluntary discontinuance with prejudice. At mediation, Leigh emphasized that KF’s expert witness challenged the plaintiff’s claim that the fall was caused by a sidewalk height differential after reviewing the videotape footage and determining the plaintiff’s fall began before his feet made contact with the alleged defect. Based on this analysis, the expert concluded the reported height differential did not initiate the fall, which supported KF’s position that the incident depicted in the video was unrealistic and appeared staged. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Leigh Katz, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Katz may be contacted at lkatz@kahanafeld.com