BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Grant County New Mexico office building expert witness Grant County New Mexico retail construction expert witness Grant County New Mexico multi family housing expert witness Grant County New Mexico parking structure expert witness Grant County New Mexico tract home expert witness Grant County New Mexico low-income housing expert witness Grant County New Mexico condominiums expert witness Grant County New Mexico institutional building expert witness Grant County New Mexico industrial building expert witness Grant County New Mexico custom homes expert witness Grant County New Mexico townhome construction expert witness Grant County New Mexico custom home expert witness Grant County New Mexico landscaping construction expert witness Grant County New Mexico Subterranean parking expert witness Grant County New Mexico Medical building expert witness Grant County New Mexico housing expert witness Grant County New Mexico hospital construction expert witness Grant County New Mexico structural steel construction expert witness Grant County New Mexico casino resort expert witness Grant County New Mexico condominium expert witness Grant County New Mexico mid-rise construction expert witness Grant County New Mexico
    Grant County New Mexico building envelope expert witnessGrant County New Mexico expert witness commercial buildingsGrant County New Mexico consulting general contractorGrant County New Mexico civil engineer expert witnessGrant County New Mexico window expert witnessGrant County New Mexico construction project management expert witnessGrant County New Mexico stucco expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Grant County, New Mexico

    New Mexico Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Grant County New Mexico

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    SW New Mexico Home Builders Association
    Local # 3270
    PO Box 1962
    Silver City, NM 88062

    Grant County New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

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

    Grant County New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Building Industry Association of Southern New Mexico
    Local # 3254
    PO Box 2608
    Las Cruces, NM 88004

    Grant County New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

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

    Grant County New Mexico Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Grant County New Mexico


    The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

    NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Panama Weighs Another Canal Expansion at Centennial Mark

    Mega-Consulate Ties U.S. to Convicted Billionaire in Nigeria

    New Jersey Imposes New Apprenticeship Training Requirements

    The Construction Gigaprojects Report

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Architect Searches for Lost Identity in a City Ravaged by War

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    President Trump Implements Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

    A New Study on Implementing Digital Visual Management

    Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

    Communication Gaps Can Cost Construction Firms in the Data Center Boom

    New Report Reveals Heavy Civil Construction Less Impacted by COVID-19 Than Commercial Construction

    Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014

    One Shot to Get It Right: Navigating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Can Baltimore Get a Great Bridge?

    How Does Weather Impact a Foundation?

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    Building the Secondary Market for Reclaimed Building Materials

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens

    Another Way a Mechanic’s Lien Protects You

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party
    Corporate Profile

    GRANT COUNTY NEW MEXICO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Grant County, New Mexico Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Grant County's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Grant County, New Mexico

    Cal Unity Bar Names Angela Zanin as Statewide President

    August 11, 2026 —
    The California Unity Bar has named Los Angeles Partner Angela Zanin as its statewide president for the 2026-2027 term. This appointment follows Ms. Zanin's extensive involvement in the organization, including as the founding co-chair of the Los Angeles County Unity Bar in 2024 and as its chair for the 2024-2025 term. Ms. Zanin also has served as a member of the Executive Steering Committee of the California Unity Bar since 2025. In her inaugural message as president, which the Cal Unity Bar published in its newsletter of July 2026, Ms. Zanin stated that she vowed to continue the organization’s “commitment to promoting equal opportunities and embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the State of California.” She also noted that as she assumed the role of president, she thought of “the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”’ Ms. Zanin closed her message by observing, “At a time when the rule of law faces challenges, our alliance stands strong, built on trust and confidence in each other.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

    June 02, 2026 —
    California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:
    1. First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
    2. The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
    3. The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.
    In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    FERC Issues Show-Cause Orders: Impacts on California and Other Regional Power Markets

    July 13, 2026 —
    At an open meeting on June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued show-cause orders under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act to the six FERC-jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs—PJM Interconnection, ISO New England, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Southwest Power Pool, New York Independent System Operator and California Independent System Operator—along with their transmission owners (TOs), directing each region and the TOs to justify or revise tariff provisions governing how data centers and other large loads connect to and receive transmission service from the grid. These show-cause orders will impact several power markets across the country, including California. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury, Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury and Jason Drogin Atwood, Pillsbury Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Atwood may be contacted at jason.atwood@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications

    March 31, 2026 —
    An older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages. In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    The GKN Aerospace Chemical Release and the Laws Designed to Address It

    July 06, 2026 —
    On May 21, 2026, a 34,000-gallon storage tank at the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove, California began leaking methyl methacrylate (MMA), a volatile and highly flammable industrial chemical used to manufacture high-strength acrylic plastics. GKN Aerospace makes advanced military and commercial transparencies, such as aircraft canopies, windshields, cabin windows, bullet-resistant glass, and spacecraft windows. In polymer chemistry lingo, MMA is known as a monomer. Monomers are like individual links to a chain. Under the right conditions they link up (react) with each other to form long-chained polymers, or plastics. MMA is an unstable monomer that requires controlled storage conditions to avoid setting off a polymerization (chain) reaction. According to early reports, the MMA tank at GKN Aerospace overheated. The cause of the overheating is not yet clear, but the overheating may have created conditions enabling the MMA to initiate polymerization, which in turn generated heat, which in turn generated pressure, activating the tank’s pressure-relief system and releasing MMA vapor into the atmosphere. Concerns about a runaway reaction, massive release, and explosion led the Orange County Fire Authority to order evacuation of approximately 40,000 residents and closure of thirteen schools. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

    Document Everything! Always! No Exceptions! (AKA, Help Your Lawyer Help You!)

    April 14, 2026 —
    I had a case last year in which once again I found myself thinking: if only my client had better documented the verbal agreements, we would have had a much easier time defending his work. I know this is often easier said than done— you are in the middle of building a project, and you get a call, and you need to keep the project moving. No time for written change directives or a special bulletin. And yet—it is simply amazing to me the number of people who develop “litigation amnesia” about things when a lawsuit is involved. Your documentation system does not need to be perfect. You can use a simple Field notebook and handwritten notations. A text memo to yourself or, better yet, an email confirmation to the owner/contractor/whoever. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act

    June 15, 2026 —
    Most, if not all, jurisdictions, including the federal government, have what is known as a “Prompt Payment Act.” The objective is to ensure prompt payment. If prompt payment is not made, the Prompt Payment Act provides for interest penalties, as well as potentially other costs such as attorney’s fees. But the thing is, it’s not as simple as untimely payment to support the recourse and interest penalties the applicable Prompt Payment Act affords. And the teeth associated with the applicable Prompt Payment Act are not as sharp as perhaps the party claiming untimely payment prefers. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Colorado Legislature Considers Series of Bills Aimed at Boosting Affordable Housing Construction in Colorado — What Homebuilders Need to Know

    April 08, 2026 —
    On January 21, 2026, lawmakers introduced a series of bills with the goals of addressing affordable housing issues and incentivizing construction in Colorado. House Bill 26-1001 (known as the “Housing Opportunities Made Easier ‘HOME’ Act”) concerns the promotion for residential developments on “qualifying properties” that do not contain exempt parcels through the bypassing of often time-consuming local planning processes. Under HB26-1001, a “qualifying property is any real property that contains no more than five acres of land and is owned by: (i) a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing; (ii) a nonprofit organization that provides public transit; (iii) a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing, provided that the agreement requires the nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property; (iv) a school district; (v) a state college or university; (vi) a housing authority; or (vii) a local or regional transit district or a regional transportation authority serving one or more counties. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com