BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas production housing expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas custom home expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas low-income housing expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas concrete tilt-up expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas condominium expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas hospital construction expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas retail construction expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas multi family housing expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas institutional building expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas housing expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas office building expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas high-rise construction expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas industrial building expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas Subterranean parking expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas condominiums expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas tract home expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas mid-rise construction expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas landscaping construction expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas structural steel construction expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas parking structure expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas Medical building expert witness Mount Judea Arkansas
    Mount Judea Arkansas concrete expert witnessMount Judea Arkansas consulting general contractorMount Judea Arkansas defective construction expertMount Judea Arkansas construction expertsMount Judea Arkansas soil failure expert witnessMount Judea Arkansas expert witness concrete failureMount Judea Arkansas construction scheduling expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Mount Judea, 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 Mount Judea Arkansas

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    NE Arkansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 0432
    PO Box 17237
    Jonesboro, AR 72403

    Mount Judea Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northwest Arkansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 0424
    2022 Long Ave Ste C
    Springdale, AR 72764

    Mount Judea Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Cleburne County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0405
    PO Box 1325
    Heber Springs, AR 72543
    Mount Judea Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North Central Arkansas Chapter
    Local # 0438
    PO Box 550
    Harrison, AR 72602

    Mount Judea Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Carroll County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0412
    908 W. Trimble
    Berryville, AR 72616
    Mount Judea Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Mount Judea Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Twin Lakes Home Builders Association
    Local # 0448
    1520 Hwy 62 East
    Mountain Home, AR 72653

    Mount Judea Arkansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Mount Judea Arkansas


    U.K. Puts Tax on Developers to Fund Safer Apartment Blocks

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    House Approves $715B Transportation and Water Infrastructure Bill

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

    How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer

    Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    Idaho Contractor Registration: Lessons from the Ward v. Bishop Decision

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again

    Court Upholds Appraisers' Use of "Increased Cost of Construction" Provision

    The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

    Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate Shanna B. Carter on Obtaining Another Defense Award at Arbitration!

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Kahana Feld Announces Key Partner Additions Coast to Coast

    States Sue Trump Admin Over Wind Energy Permitting Pause

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

    Insurance and Reconstruction: A Guide for Property Owners Facing Wildfire Aftermath and Other Disasters

    Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    Colorado Springs may be Next Colorado City to Add Construction Defects Ordinance

    School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    Managing Rising Costs and Shifting Legal Risk for Florida High-Rise and Condominium Projects

    Thank You!
    Corporate Profile

    MOUNT JUDEA ARKANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Mount Judea, 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Mount Judea'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
    Mount Judea, Arkansas

    A Customized Approach to Data Center Construction

    June 29, 2026 —
    Data center construction projects are, to put it mildly, distinct. They differ from traditional construction in a host of manners, and are particularly distinctive because the value of the facility depends on unique measures of performance. A center that cannot meet uptime, cooling, redundancy or connectivity standards will not achieve its mission, whether or not the structure itself meets standard industry contract-form “substantial completion” or “mechanical completion” definitions. Owners, developers, lenders, operators and hyperscalers—especially hyperscalers!—want it all. They seek favorable and stable pricing, accelerated delivery and sophisticated components, all of which are evolving in “real project time.” Standard construction contract forms deserve extensive modifications to align clauses with expectations, with a heightened focus on systems integration, commissioning, and allocation of special risks. This article details customized considerations for drafting, negotiating and administering data center design and construction agreements. Reprinted courtesy of James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury, Arielle L. Murphy, Pillsbury and Robert A. James, Pillsbury Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Murphy may be contacted at arielle.murphy@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    Hidden Risks Behind Today’s Stadium Construction Boom

    July 20, 2026 —
    After a decade-plus lull, professional sports leagues, universities and municipalities are once again spending heavily on new stadiums and major renovations. In the NFL alone, multiple marquee projects are underway or planned, representing more than $10 billion in facilities and mixed-use entertainment districts, rivaling or exceeding the scale of development during the last stadium-build cycle of the early 2000s. Beneath the excitement of architectural ambition and civic pride lies a risk landscape that has fundamentally changed since the last wave of stadium construction. Teams, cities and contractors that rely on outdated assumptions may find themselves exposed to cost overruns, schedule delays and liabilities that are far more difficult to unwind once construction is underway. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

    What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

    July 13, 2026 —
    Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

    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...

    Managing Tariff Volatility in Cross‑Border U.S. Construction Projects: Practical Contract‑Drafting and Procurement Strategies

    March 10, 2026 —
    Volatile U.S. tariff announcements continue to affect international supply chains for U.S. construction projects. Although recent litigation has centered on the scope of presidential tariff authority rather than construction‑specific disputes, these decisions carry important implications for how parties structure risk in their contracts. In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down certain “Liberation Day” tariffs as exceeding presidential authority under IEEPA. A federal district court in Washington, D.C. likewise issued a preliminary injunction suspending related tariffs—though it later stayed its own order pending appeal. And the Supreme Court has agreed to review cases addressing the legal limits of IEEPA‑based tariffs. While none of these developments arises from construction disputes, the themes they highlight—timing, statutory authority, and documentation—mirror the issues encountered when tariff conditions disrupt international procurement. The following strategies reflect practical steps U.S. project owners, contractors, and foreign suppliers can take to mitigate risk, drawing on drafting approaches now widely used across major construction forms, including—but not limited to—modified AIA agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Sara Beiro Farabow, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Michael Wagner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Ms. Farabow may be contacted at sfarabow@seyfarth.com Mr. Wagner may be contacted at mewagner@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

    Modern Building-Sundt $17M Claim Is Stranded by Hospital Bankruptcy

    April 27, 2026 —
    A $16.9-million claim for work on a hospital addition by a joint venture of contractors Modern Building Co. and Sundt Construction is stuck and delayed indefinitely following the California hospital's December bankruptcy filing. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Lewis Brisbois Welcomes Clients and Community Leaders to New Garden City Office Opening

    July 27, 2026 —
    On July 15, Lewis Brisbois hosted a ribbon-cutting event for its new Garden City office, which opened in April to serve the Long Island community and beyond. The event was attended by more than 100 people, including Lewis Brisbois attorneys and staff as well as clients, local business and government leaders, Nassau County Supreme Court judges, and members of the press. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman delivered remarks and cut the ribbon for the office. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Suit Limitation Provision Eliminates Wind Loss Claim

    July 27, 2026 —
    The insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted after the insured failed to file suit against the insurer within the policy’s two-year suit limitation provision. Interstate Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98108 (S.D. N. Y. May 4, 2026). On or before June 27, 2023, a wind, hail and rainstorm damaged Interstate’s property in Oklahoma. Interstate filed a claim under its policy with Mt. Hawley. The policy provided that New York law applied and contained a two- year suit limitation provision. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com