BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Berino New Mexico concrete tilt-up expert witness Berino New Mexico housing expert witness Berino New Mexico Subterranean parking expert witness Berino New Mexico retail construction expert witness Berino New Mexico townhome construction expert witness Berino New Mexico condominiums expert witness Berino New Mexico institutional building expert witness Berino New Mexico production housing expert witness Berino New Mexico casino resort expert witness Berino New Mexico low-income housing expert witness Berino New Mexico parking structure expert witness Berino New Mexico custom home expert witness Berino New Mexico tract home expert witness Berino New Mexico structural steel construction expert witness Berino New Mexico high-rise construction expert witness Berino New Mexico landscaping construction expert witness Berino New Mexico Medical building expert witness Berino New Mexico multi family housing expert witness Berino New Mexico custom homes expert witness Berino New Mexico condominium expert witness Berino New Mexico office building expert witness Berino New Mexico
    Berino New Mexico ada design expert witnessBerino New Mexico OSHA expert witness constructionBerino New Mexico building envelope expert witnessBerino New Mexico expert witness commercial buildingsBerino New Mexico reconstruction expert witnessBerino New Mexico building expertBerino New Mexico architectural engineering expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Berino, New Mexico

    New Mexico Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Berino New Mexico

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association of Southern New Mexico
    Local # 3254
    PO Box 2608
    Las Cruces, NM 88004

    Berino New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Contractors Association of Otero County
    Local # 3283
    PO Box 4382
    Alamogordo, NM 88310
    Berino New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    SW New Mexico Home Builders Association
    Local # 3270
    PO Box 1962
    Silver City, NM 88062

    Berino New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lincoln County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3252
    PO Box 2769
    Ruidoso, NM 88355

    Berino New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    South Eastern NM Home Builders Association
    Local # 3240
    PO Box 1132
    Roswell, NM 88202
    Berino New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Eastern New Mexico
    Local # 3230
    PO Box 953
    Clovis, NM 88102
    Berino New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of New Mexico
    Local # 3200
    5931 Office Blvd NE Ste 1
    Albuquerque, NM 87109

    Berino New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Berino New Mexico


    BWB&O’s Colorado Lawyers Successfully Defend Damages of more than $150 Million in Historic Construction Lawsuit!

    Incorporation by Reference in Your Design Services Contract– What Does this Mean, and Are You at Risk? (Law Note)

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Chicago Debt Document Says $8.5B O'Hare Revamp May Be Delayed

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

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

    Dispute Resolution in Your Construction Contract

    Celebrating BWB&O’s 2026 Super Lawyers Rising Stars in San Diego!

    From Shale to Salt: Texas Supreme Court Applies Uniform Rule for Ownership of Subsurface Caverns

    Lawyer Claims HOA Scam Mastermind Bribed Politicians

    Trump Budget Would Slash Some Construction Spending, Boost Transportation Projects

    Estimate Tops $5.5B for Cost of Rebuilding After Maui Fires

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Cliff White Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Thank You All for 10 Years Straight of VA Super Lawyers

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    U.K. Broadens Crackdown on Archaic Property Leasehold System

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    Two New Developments in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    Understanding the Miller Act

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    NYC Billionaires’ Row Tower Could Need $160M Fix Amid Cracking

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    House of Digital Twins

    Seattle Crane Strike Heads Into Labor Day Weekend After Some Contractors Sign Agreements

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know
    Corporate Profile

    BERINO NEW MEXICO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Berino, New Mexico Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Berino, New Mexico

    Sometimes a General Damages Assessment is Enough. . .

    July 06, 2026 —
    It has been a while since I last posted here at Construction Law Musings. Life, law practice, and “blogger’s block” have taken their toll on the posting schedule. Hopefully this will be one of several upcoming posts now that the litigation schedule has lightened a bit over the summer. Today’s post is about damages. Specifically damage to a homeowner’s roof and her legal damages therefor. That last is of course a sentence that only a construction attorney (or other litigator) could possibly craft and have it make sense. Now, on with the case. . .In Hardesty Construction, Inc. v. Weedon, the facts are as follows: Ms. Weedon had hail damage to the roof of her home. She hired Hardesty Construction to repair and replace the roof. After the first roof was installed and failed inspection, a second roof was installed. The issue was that the first roof had a warranty and the second roof, installed similarly to the first (and allegedly with the same construction issues according to Ms. Weedon’s expert), was not provided with the promised warranty. As one may expect, Weedon sued Hardesty and Hardesty Construction for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. At trial, Weedon testified, without objection, that her home was worth $40,000 less because of Hardesty Construction’s work, which was based partially on quotes Weedon received to fix the roof. The Circuit Court granted Hardesty Construction’s motion to strike Weedon’s fraudulent inducement claim, but not her other claims. A jury awarded Weedon $30,253.30 on her breach of contract claim. Hardesty Construction appealed, arguing the Circuit Court erred in (a) allowing the jury to consider Weedon’s valuation testimony because it was not based on her personal knowledge and (b) denying its motion to strike based on insufficient evidence as to damages. Weedon assigned cross-error in the Circuit Court’s decision to grant the motion to strike her fraudulent inducement claim against Samual Hardesty. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits

    July 27, 2026 —
    Levi W. Barrett, Co-Managing Partner of Peckar & Abramson’s New Jersey office, Co-Chair of the firm’s Construction Contracts & Risk Management team, and Executive Committee Member, was recently quoted in “New York Orders Moratorium on Large Data Center Permits,” an article written by Engineering News-Record (ENR). The article examines New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s executive order temporarily halting state environmental permit reviews for certain large-scale data center projects while regulators develop a comprehensive framework to address the sector’s energy demands, water consumption, environmental impacts, and effects on local communities. It also explores the broader implications of the moratorium for developers, contractors, investors, and other stakeholders, as well as the ongoing debate between economic development, AI-driven infrastructure growth, and environmental and utility ratepayer concerns. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com

    Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor

    May 14, 2026 —
    The Fourth Circuit in APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 24-1969, 2026 WL 458402 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) recently endorsed broad coverage for additional insureds, interpreting “arising out of” broadly under North Carolina law to extend coverage to a repaving company under its subcontractor’s liability insurance policy. The court held that an additional insured’s liability “arising out of” a named insured’s work in an additional-insured endorsement means liability “relating to” or “causally connected to” the named insured’s operations, rather than liability defined more narrowly as “caused by” or “the fault of” the named insured. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

    Late Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Water Leak Damage

    August 11, 2026 —
    The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the insured’s claim due to late notice. Global Approach, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120183 (S. D. Fla. June 1, 2026). Global suffered water damage on September 3, 2021, which originated in the bathroom of one of its rental properties. Global reported the claim to its insurer, Scottsdale, on October 19, 2021. Prior to reporting the claim, Global hired a handyman to inspect the property and then demolished the damaged area and repaired the bathroom. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Building in Arizona’s Data Center Boom: How Federal Executive Orders, State Regulation, and National-Security Policy Are Reshaping the Rules for Developers

    June 02, 2026 —
    Developers and practitioners evaluating data center projects in Arizona face a regulatory environment shifting on three fronts simultaneously. Federal executive orders are opening new land, streamlining permitting, and channeling financial incentives toward qualifying projects — but they are not preempting the state and local rules that most directly affect project economics. A carve-out in the December 2025 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework Executive Order preserves Arizona’s authority over data center infrastructure, meaning the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) rate-classification docket, municipal zoning restrictions, water-use ordinances, and pending grid cost-allocation legislation remain the binding constraints on project feasibility. Understanding where federal tailwinds end and state and local headwinds begin is essential for any developer sizing risk or selecting sites in the state. The Federal Landscape: An Interlocking Framework of Executive Orders Five interlocking executive orders are accelerating data center development nationally, but none overrides Arizona’s authority over siting energy, or infrastructure. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Regula, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Regula may be contacted at rregula@swlaw.com

    No Ink, No Problem: When Employees and Agents Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements

    August 11, 2026 —
    Arbitration is a fundamental component of modern construction contracting. Many in the industry recognize the potential benefits and protections arbitration can provide to the business in the event of a dispute. But an important question many contracts do not address is: who does the arbitration agreement cover? Does it include the business entity only, or the individuals acting on behalf of the entity? As courts have long recognized, entities can generally only act through their employees, representatives, or agents.[1] This article discusses the circumstances in which an agent may rely on an arbitration provision entered by its employer. This is known as the agency doctrine. Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Heath, Associate, Jones Walker LLP and Jacob Morrison, Law Student University of Georgia, Jones Walker LLP Read the full story...
    Mr. Heath may be contacted at jheath@joneswalker.com

    GRSM Secures Complete Judgment for Defense in Years-Long Dispute Spanning Multiple Venues

    June 22, 2026 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Hartford, Connecticut, and Dallas offices recently secured a complete defense judgment and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs in an arbitration on behalf of a longtime client, concluding a dispute that lasted several years and traversed multiple jurisdictions. The dispute initially arose in Texas state court, and almost immediately, the claimant began pursuing the matter aggressively, a pattern that continued until the day judgment was entered in GRSM’s client’s favor. GRSM’s team mounted a strong defense, achieving an early success in compelling mandatory arbitration. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Settlement Agreements and Contracts Require a Meeting of the Minds

    July 20, 2026 —
    A settlement agreement does not need to be executed for it to be enforceable as long as there was a MEETING OF THE MINDS. The same rings true for any contract regardless of whether the contract is signed – THERE NEEDS TO BE A MEETING OF THE MINDS. In a recent case dealing with the settlement agreement on a construction lien, the essential settlement terms (money and mutual release) were memorialized in an e-mail exchange between the parties (owner and subcontractor). The settlement required the owner to pay the principal amount plus some attorney’s fees and then a mutual general release would be prepared. In response to the confirmatory email, the owner sent a check, which the subcontractor deposited, but the owner refused to sign the release signed and sent by the subcontractor. The owner further claimed it doesn’t need to pay the attorney’s fees because the lien amount was paid in full. The subcontractor sued arguing the owner breached the terms of the settlement. The appellate court agreed. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com