BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Adak Alaska Medical building expert witness Adak Alaska retail construction expert witness Adak Alaska townhome construction expert witness Adak Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Adak Alaska production housing expert witness Adak Alaska low-income housing expert witness Adak Alaska parking structure expert witness Adak Alaska custom home expert witness Adak Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Adak Alaska office building expert witness Adak Alaska condominium expert witness Adak Alaska casino resort expert witness Adak Alaska condominiums expert witness Adak Alaska industrial building expert witness Adak Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Adak Alaska tract home expert witness Adak Alaska institutional building expert witness Adak Alaska multi family housing expert witness Adak Alaska custom homes expert witness Adak Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Adak Alaska housing expert witness Adak Alaska
    Adak Alaska contractor expert witnessAdak Alaska eifs expert witnessAdak Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationAdak Alaska architecture expert witnessAdak Alaska delay claim expert witnessAdak Alaska construction expert testimonyAdak Alaska structural engineering expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Adak, Alaska

    Alaska Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB151 limits the damages that can be awarded in a construction defect lawsuit to the actual cost of fixing the defect and other closely related costs such as reasonable temporary housing expenses during the repair of the defect, any reduction in market value cause by the defect, and reasonable and necessary attorney fees.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Adak Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Adak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0225
    9085 Glacier Highway Ste 202
    Juneau, AK 99801

    Adak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Kenai Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 0233
    PO Box 1753
    Kenai, AK 99611

    Adak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Adak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Anchorage
    Local # 0215
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Adak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    609 S KNIK GOOSE BAY RD STE G
    Wasilla, AK 99654

    Adak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Adak Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Adak Alaska


    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    ASCE Statement on The Partial Building Collapse in Surfside, Florida

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Housing Isn’t Expensive for Everyone

    Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered

    Colorado Court of Appeals Provides Guidance on What Arbitration-Related Orders are Appealable

    Paola Perkins Secures Summary Judgment for Client in Slip and Fall Lawsuit

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Virginia Multi-Employer Site Safety Issues–and How to Deal with Them

    Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

    Manhattan Home Prices Jump to a Record as Buyers Compete

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    Construction Seyt Named a Top Construction Blog by FeedSpot

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Insurance Policy to Protect Hawaii's Coral Reefs

    Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Older Homes for Sale in California Now Come With Wildfire Warnings

    Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    How to Properly Fill Out and Use the Conditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment Form Used in California Construction

    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Contractor Entitled to Defense in Suit Filed by Performance Bond Carrier

    Jason Feld Awarded Volunteer of the Year by Claims & Litigation Management Alliance

    Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

    Meet Daniel Hall, Assistant Professor at TU Delft

    Insured’s Breach of Contract Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss, but Bad Faith Claim Does Not

    The Biggest Trials Coming to Courts Around the World in 2021

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Pillsbury Insights – Navigating the Real Estate Market During COVID-19

    New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    Bidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is Set
    Corporate Profile

    ADAK ALASKA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Adak, Alaska 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 Adak'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
    Adak, Alaska

    Snell & Wilmer Recognized Among the Top 10 Largest Law Firms in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal for the Ninth Consecutive Year

    April 27, 2026 —
    ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been named the eighth largest law firm in Orange County on the Orange County Business Journal’s 2026 List of Law Firms. The office has been ranked among the top 10 largest law firms in the region by the Orange County Business Journal for nine consecutive years. “We are proud to once again be recognized among the top law firms in Orange County,” said Jonathan E. Frank, managing partner of the firm’s Orange County office. “This recognition is a testament to the outstanding attorneys and professionals in our Orange County office and the clients who trust us with their most important matters. Being ranked among the top 10 largest firms in the region for nine consecutive years reflects both the strength of our team and our deep commitment to serving the Orange County business community.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

    How Engineers Will Determine Why NYC's Pfizer HQ Conversion Buckled

    July 13, 2026 —
    Construction crews have stabilized the former Pfizer headquarters redevelopment in Midtown Manhattan after two load-bearing structural columns buckled on the 21st floor July 7. The focus has now shifted from emergency response to determining what caused the office-to-residential conversion to suffer a major structural failure. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

    Federal Bid Protest Standard of Review and Disparate Treatment with Ratings

    August 16, 2026 —
    A recent decision out of the Federal Claims Court explains the post-award bid protest standard of review. In Massman Construction Co. v. U.S., 2026 WL 1971985 (Fed.Cl. 2026), a protestor brought a post-award bid protest after the Army Corps of Engineers awarded the contract to another contractor. The protestor argued that the Army Corps (government) acted irrational in its evaluation through disparate treatment. The Court of Federal Claims agreed and remanded for the Army Corps to “either justify this disparity or explain why [awardee’s] lower-priced, but technically inferior proposal provides the best value to the government.” Massman Construction, supra at *1. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Insureds’ Altering Dates for Hailstorm Damage Justifies Denial of Claim

    June 02, 2026 —
    The Firth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer due to the insureds’ failure to establish the date of loss after a hailstorm. Cutchall v. Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2026 WL 625633 (5th Cir. March 5, 2026). In September 2021, the Cutchalls made a claim on their policy for interior water damage due to a hailstorm that breached their roof. Chubb retained two engineers to inspect the home, but neither found evidence that a hailstorm caused the damage. Instead, the engineers concluded a variety of other causes, such as poor ventilation and as-built defects, caused the damage. Because Chubb concluded that some of these other causes were covered by the policy, it paid only for the covered portions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    From CERCLA to Drinking Water: D.C. Circuit’s PFAS Ruling Enters a Second Regulatory Fight

    October 06, 2026 —
    On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. EPA, the court rejected challenges to EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA Section 102(a), the adequacy of its notice and comment process, its analysis of costs and benefits, and its decision to proceed despite uncertainty about future response actions and costs. This decision is already being invoked in a separate D.C. Circuit challenge to EPA’s 2024 PFAS drinking water rule promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Six days after the CERCLA decision, respondent intervenors cited it as supplemental authority in American Water Works Association v. EPA, No. 24-1188, ahead of oral argument scheduled for September 18, 2026. The Chamber of Commerce decision may assist the respondent intervenors on certain notice and comment and economic analysis arguments, but its significance should not be overstated. The principal challenges to the standards for the four PFAS subject to EPA’s Hazard Index-based maximum contaminant level (MCL) turn on requirements specific to the SDWA, and EPA itself now agrees that those provisions were promulgated through an unlawful process. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    Function Over Form: Eighth Circuit Narrows Application of Cosmetic Damage Exclusion

    October 12, 2026 —
    Introduction In a significant decision for policyholders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation of an exclusion for cosmetic roof damage caused by wind or hail.[1] The court held that for a cosmetic damage exclusion to apply, an insurer must prove that the roof’s ability to function as a barrier to the elements is not impaired as compared to its functionality prior to the loss or damage. Background In April 2022, a hailstorm struck the insured school buildings causing indentations in the buildings’ metal roofs. The hail did not puncture the roofs’ metal, and no leaks were reported. The insurer denied the claim based on the policy’s cosmetic damage exclusion, which precluded coverage for “cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind and/or hail.” Cosmetic damage was defined as “superficial damage that altered the appearance of the roof surfacing, but such damage does not prevent the roof from continuing to function as a barrier to entrance of the elements to the same extent as it did before.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ali Jamwal, SDV Fenchurch
    Mr. Jamwal may be contacted at ali.jamwal@sdvfenchurch.us

    Flatiron Said Disputed Concrete Mix Cost Millions on Large Caltrans Project

    June 22, 2026 —
    For awhile in 2023, part of the California Dept. of Transportation's (Caltrans) Fix 50 HOV lane and resurfacing project in Sacramento itself needed to be fixed. Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record and Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

    Every High-Tech Building Has Many Lifespans

    August 16, 2026 —
    When I worked as an architect, our team designed a laboratory for fuel research. The facility included a large research hall where various boilers and other devices were tested and analyzed. The setup required extensive floor channeling under the thick concrete floor. We suggested building a modular system that would allow flexibility in the future, when requirements would certainly change. They did not want that because of budget constraints. The high-tech construction trend is spreading. Data centers, semiconductor fabs, battery plants, and life science facilities share one property that sets them apart from ordinary buildings. The technology inside turns over faster than the structure around it. Server generations change every three to five years. Rack densities have risen from 10 or 20 kW to 130 kW and beyond in just a few years. A high-tech facility is really several buildings with different lifespans inside one envelope, and we keep designing them as if they were one. The failure is not that things become obsolete. It is that we never say when each layer is expected to. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi