BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin condominiums expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin Medical building expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin production housing expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin townhome construction expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin industrial building expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin low-income housing expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin Subterranean parking expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin housing expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin mid-rise construction expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin casino resort expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin custom homes expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin hospital construction expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin institutional building expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin landscaping construction expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin office building expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin multi family housing expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin condominium expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin parking structure expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin concrete tilt-up expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin structural steel construction expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin tract home expert witness Cudahy Wisconsin
    Cudahy Wisconsin expert witness concrete failureCudahy Wisconsin soil failure expert witnessCudahy Wisconsin contractor expert witnessCudahy Wisconsin reconstruction expert witnessCudahy Wisconsin construction expert witnessesCudahy Wisconsin forensic architectCudahy Wisconsin architect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Cudahy, Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB448 specifies 90 day notice with details and evidence prior to commencing legal action. It provides for a 15 day written response from contractor or 25 days if cross-claims against subcontractors; The law states “The claimant and contractor or supplier are bound by any contractor or supplier warranty terms pertaining to products or services supplied for the dwelling.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Cudahy Wisconsin

    Contractors are required to have the correct credentials for their trade. Not all classifications require credentialing. For a list of credentials, see the website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Madison Area Builders Association
    Local # 5132
    5936 Seminole Centre Ct
    Madison, WI 53711

    Cudahy Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Metro Builders Association of Gr Milwaukee
    Local # 5148
    N16 W23321 Stoneridge Dr
    Waukesha, WI 53188

    Cudahy Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Wisconsin Builders Association (State)
    Local # 5100
    4868 High Crossing Blvd
    Madison, WI 53704

    Cudahy Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lakeland Builders Association
    Local # 5128
    1560 N Country Club Pkwy
    Elkhorn, WI 53121

    Cudahy Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Racine-Kenosha Builders Association
    Local # 5156
    PO Box 706
    Sturtevant, WI 53177

    Cudahy Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    South Central Wisconsin Builders Association
    Local # 5140
    PO Box 563
    Janesville, WI 53547

    Cudahy Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    South West Wisconsin Home Builders Association
    Local # 5142
    703 19th St PO Box 521
    Monroe, WI 53566
    Cudahy Wisconsin Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Cudahy Wisconsin


    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart

    Standing When It Comes to Real Property Owned by a Trust

    Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

    Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

    Middle District of Florida Disregards Other Insurance Clause Where Subcontractor Contractually Promised to Indemnify General Contractor

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Amazon HQ2 Puts Concrete on an Embodied Carbon Diet

    Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Georgia Update: Automatic Renewals in Consumer Service Contracts

    Lorelie S. Masters Nominated for Best in Insurance & Reinsurance for the Women in Business Law Awards 2021

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    What is Bad Faith?

    Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

    Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?

    COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

    Another Possible “Out” of Uniwest?

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Best Lawyers Honors 43 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Three Partners as 'Lawyers of The Year'

    Thanks to All for My 9th Straight Super Lawyers Election

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    Not Every Job Is Worth Winning: Contract Risk Questions Contractors Should Ask Before They Bid

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Connecticut Federal District Court Follows Majority Rule on Insurance Policy Anti-Assignment Clauses

    Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

    Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions

    Federal Court Upholds Uninsured Contractor Endorsement; Finds Duty to Defend Anyway

    Arbitration and Mediation: What’s the Difference? What to Expect.

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Order for Appraisal Affirmed After Insureds Comply with Post-Loss Obligations

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Va. Contractor Fined for Alleged DC Wage and Classification Violations

    Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

    White and Williams LLP Secures a Clean Sweep Dismissal of Architect's Professional Liability Coverage Lawsuit
    Corporate Profile

    CUDAHY WISCONSIN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Cudahy, Wisconsin 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 Cudahy'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
    Cudahy, Wisconsin

    Pursuing Claims for Loss Caused by Recent Kona Low Storms for Homeowners and Businesses

    May 12, 2026 —
    The recent Kona Low storms that hit all islands were devastating, causing significant property damage. Homeowners and businesses will be seeking coverage under their insurance policies to recover for their losses. Here is a brief look at what may be covered and which exclusions may be troublesome in homeowners’ and commercial property policies. Typically, both a homeowners’ policy and a commercial property policy include a grant of coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property.” Covered perils are listed, including such events as fire, lightning, or windstorm. Covered Property includes dwellings, other structures on the property and personal property. Additional coverages are usually provided. This includes debris removal after a peril insured against or collapse of a structure. In a homeowners’ policy, additional living expenses are likely covered when the damaged home is not fit to live in. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Dispute Erupts Into Public Over Castro Theater Rehab Project Costs

    September 08, 2026 —
    As it was about to start an arbitration of final payments on a complex theater renovation, the entertainment company that leases San Francisco's landmark Castro Theatre has filed a state court trademark violation lawsuit seeking to bar the contractor from publicizing as a success its work for the owner on that and other projects. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Construction Liens: Liening for Amounts Not Yet Technically Due Does Not Mean Lien Is Fraudulent

    August 11, 2026 —
    A 2024 bankruptcy ruling, In re Edgewater Construction Group, Inc., 657 B.R. 668 (S.D.Fla. 2024), touched upon an interesting issue when it comes to construction liens. Is a construction lien fraudulent simply because the lien includes amounts not yet due? Not necessarily. In this bankruptcy dispute, the subcontractor debtor (that filed for bankruptcy) recorded two construction liens on projects. The general contractor argued in the bankruptcy court that the subcontractor debtor’s liens were fraudulent. As to the first lien, the general contractor argued that the lien was fraudulent because it included amounts that the debtor knew the general contractor had already paid to the debtor’s subcontractors/suppliers. The bankruptcy court disagreed: “The Court finds that, although the Debtor had been told that [the general contractor] had paid these subcontractors, in light of the ongoing dispute between Debtor and [the general contractor], it was reasonable for the Debtor to demand proof. Debtor’s subsequent filing of a partial satisfaction of lien once the Debtor received the requested proof of payment from [the general contractor] counters any claim of willful exaggeration.” In re Edgewater Construction Group, supra, at 672-673. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    June 23, 2026 —
    n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    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

    Insurer Cannot Raise Issues on Appeal that Were Not Presented to the Trial Court

    June 15, 2026 —
    The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment on a collapse claim for the insured, rejecting the insurer’s arguments that were not presented to the trial court. Homeowner’s Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins, Co. v. Oakes, 2026 Fl. App. LEXIS 2086 (Fl. Ct. App. March 18, 2026). The insured’s ceiling collapsed in the secondary home on the insured’s property. The claim was reported to the insurer, but coverage was denied after its investigation. The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract. Under the Additional Coverage provisions of the policy, collapse was covered if it was “abrupt.” An abrupt collapse was not covered, however, if exclusions for “Fungi, Wet or Dry Rot” and “faulty, inadequate or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, materials or maintenance” applied. The collapse provisions contained no language stating that the coverage granted in the provision was also subject to all the other exclusions in 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

    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.

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/12/26) – Data Center Momentum Increases, Multifamily Construction Projects Decline, CRE Returns as Top Investor Preference

    September 01, 2026 —
    In our latest roundup, office vacancies fall, fair housing advocacy groups sue HUD, foreign buyers reduce purchases of U.S. residential real estate, and more!
    • After a brief slowdown to begin the summer, data center construction planning momentum picked up in July, again shining as the brightest sector in building. (Zachary Phillips, Construction Dive)
    • The number of finished multifamily construction projects declined last year — welcome news for multifamily operators eager to work through the recent supply wave — and a record share of new apartments were high-density. (Julie Strupp, Multifamily Dive)
    • Fair housing advocacy groups sued the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, claiming the agency’s funding restructuring drastically reduces their ability to receive funds from the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. (Ryan Kushner, Multifamily Dive)
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team