BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building expert witness Havana Arkansas casino resort expert witness Havana Arkansas high-rise construction expert witness Havana Arkansas landscaping construction expert witness Havana Arkansas tract home expert witness Havana Arkansas structural steel construction expert witness Havana Arkansas townhome construction expert witness Havana Arkansas institutional building expert witness Havana Arkansas retail construction expert witness Havana Arkansas custom home expert witness Havana Arkansas multi family housing expert witness Havana Arkansas custom homes expert witness Havana Arkansas condominium expert witness Havana Arkansas production housing expert witness Havana Arkansas Medical building expert witness Havana Arkansas low-income housing expert witness Havana Arkansas hospital construction expert witness Havana Arkansas mid-rise construction expert witness Havana Arkansas Subterranean parking expert witness Havana Arkansas concrete tilt-up expert witness Havana Arkansas industrial building expert witness Havana Arkansas condominiums expert witness Havana Arkansas
    Havana Arkansas window expert witnessHavana Arkansas expert witness structural engineerHavana Arkansas stucco expert witnessHavana Arkansas building envelope expert witnessHavana Arkansas construction project management expert witnessHavana Arkansas construction expertsHavana Arkansas expert witnesses fenestration
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Havana, Arkansas

    Arkansas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB975: Requires that residential contractors be given notice and an opportunity to repair. Homeowners must provide 20 days notice in writing to builder prior to legal action to address defect and/or repair


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Havana Arkansas

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Faulkner County
    Local # 0439
    PO Box 1228
    Conway, AR 72033

    Havana Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Crittenden County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0415
    PO Box 2204
    West Memphis, AR 72303
    Havana Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    White County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0472
    PO Box 1501
    Searcy, AR 72143
    Havana Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Cabot Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 0420
    PO Box 1291
    Cabot, AR 72023

    Havana Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Greater Fort Smith Associated Home Builders
    Local # 0436
    5111 Rogers Ave Ste 531
    Fort Smith, AR 72903

    Havana Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    SE Arkansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 0456
    2320 Grist Mill Rd
    Little Rock, AR 72227
    Havana Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Little Rock
    Local # 0408
    PO Box 755
    North Little Rock, AR 72115

    Havana Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Havana Arkansas


    Municipal Ordinances Create Additional Opportunities for the Defense of Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    White and Williams LLP Attorneys Recognized as PA and DE Super Lawyers

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    Court Finds that Subcontractor Lacks Standing to Appeal Summary Judgment Order Simply Because Subcontractor “Might” Lose at Trial Due to Order

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    Tech to Help Contractors Avoid Litigation

    Public-Employee Union Fees, Water Wars Are Key in High Court Rulings

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    A DC Office Building Offers a Lesson in Glass and Sculpture

    Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

    On Checks and Balances

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    Retrofitting Buildings Is the Unsexy Climate Fix the World Needs

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    Building Industry Association of Southern California Announces 2025 Legends Nominees

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    Did New York Zero Tolerance Campaign Improve Jobsite Safety?

    Emerging World Needs $1.5 Trillion for Green Buildings, IFC Says

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    A Quick Checklist for Subcontractors

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Kahana Feld Secures Voluntary Discontinuance With Prejudice in High-Exposure Trip-and-Fall Case

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Judicial Economy Disfavors Enforcement of Mandatory Forum Selection Clause

    White And Williams Celebrates Chambers USA Guide 2025 Rankings

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Construction Defect Claim Survives Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion Due to Lack of Evidence

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Online Meetings & Privacy in Today’s WFH Environment

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology
    Corporate Profile

    HAVANA ARKANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Havana, Arkansas 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 Havana'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
    Havana, Arkansas

    When Your Scheduler Hallucinates: Managing AI Risk on the Job Site

    March 03, 2026 —
    Artificial intelligence has moved from the conference room to the construction site. Contractors are using AI-powered tools to predict schedule delays, monitor safety through drone footage, optimize equipment maintenance and flag potential hazards in real time. These tools deliver genuine efficiency gains, but they also introduce risks that most construction contracts do not anticipate and many project teams aren’t yet equipped to manage. The problem is that AI tools are probabilistic and not determinative, meaning that they can “hallucinate”: generating confident, but completely wrong, information. Your AI scheduling software might therefore predict a delay that never materializes, causing unnecessary resource mobilization. Your drone monitoring might flag a nonexistent safety hazard, stopping work and costing productivity. Or worse, it might miss a real hazard entirely. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Loring, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Loring may be contacted at jloring@joneswalker.com

    Structural Concerns Force Emergency Closure of Maryland Office Building

    August 16, 2026 —
    A 10-story Baltimore-area office building was evacuated after an underground parking structure was compromised during construction work. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

    Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

    April 20, 2026 —
    In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Why Travelers Fought a Fire Claim for Invisible Smoke Damage

    February 23, 2026 —
    Just 40 minutes after midnight on Sept. 27, 2018, the sky lit up over Birmingham, Ala. A fire engulfed an apartment building under construction—the last-to-be completed section of a wood-framed complex called the Metropolitan. It fueled one of the largest recorded blazes in the city’s history. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

    A Win for Clarity: What a Recent Federal Court Decision Means for Davis-Bacon Compliance

    July 13, 2026 —
    Following the Department of Labor’s 2023 Davis-Bacon rule changes, federal construction contractors faced a pressing question: not whether paying prevailing wages is required, but how far those obligations could extend. Could they reach off-site material suppliers? Delivery drivers? Contracts that omitted Davis-Bacon clauses entirely? A recent federal court decision in AGC of America v. US Department of Labor answers these questions in important ways, vacating several disputed provisions and giving contractors greater certainty when pricing, bidding, and administering federal construction projects. The ruling addresses three aspects of the 2023 regulations that sought to extend Davis-Bacon obligations beyond their traditional scope. By vacating those provisions, the decision creates a more predictable compliance environment and reinforces an important principle: Davis-Bacon enforcement works best when contractors, workers, and regulators operate under clear, objective rules. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com

    Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation

    May 14, 2026 —
    If you are entertaining a differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s. In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Appraisal Award Upheld Despite Insurer’s Contention that Causation was Considered

    February 23, 2026 —
    The federal district court in Tennessee granted the insured’s motion for summary judgment finding the appraisal award was properly determined despite the insurer’s argument that the appraisal panel considered causation of the loss. Nashville Communications, Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223455 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2025) A windstorm struck and damaged the building owned and insured by Nashville Communications (NashComm). A claim was submitted to the insurer, Auto-Owners, for damage to the roof and interior water leakage. Auto-Owners acknowledged that there was some amount of wind damage to the building from the wind event. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Four Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    March 03, 2026 —
    IRVINE, CA – Feb. 20, 2026 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that partners Jason Feld, Amir Kahana, Sharon Oh-Kubisch, and Manuel Ugarte were selected to the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers® list. Jason Feld is a founding partner of Kahana Feld. He focuses his practice on the defense of homebuilders, contractors, developers, and real estate professionals primarily in construction defect, general liability, insurance defense, construction accident, and real estate matters. He also represents government entities handling construction, premises liability, general liability, and environmental claims. He serves as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, as well as personal counsel to several national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kahana Feld