BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness Maspeth New York tract home expert witness Maspeth New York custom homes expert witness Maspeth New York condominiums expert witness Maspeth New York structural steel construction expert witness Maspeth New York industrial building expert witness Maspeth New York Medical building expert witness Maspeth New York production housing expert witness Maspeth New York high-rise construction expert witness Maspeth New York low-income housing expert witness Maspeth New York office building expert witness Maspeth New York parking structure expert witness Maspeth New York concrete tilt-up expert witness Maspeth New York mid-rise construction expert witness Maspeth New York hospital construction expert witness Maspeth New York housing expert witness Maspeth New York condominium expert witness Maspeth New York casino resort expert witness Maspeth New York institutional building expert witness Maspeth New York Subterranean parking expert witness Maspeth New York townhome construction expert witness Maspeth New York retail construction expert witness Maspeth New York
    Maspeth New York delay claim expert witnessMaspeth New York ada design expert witnessMaspeth New York construction expert witness consultantMaspeth New York contractor expert witnessMaspeth New York expert witness concrete failureMaspeth New York construction expert testimonyMaspeth New York expert witness windows
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Maspeth, New York

    New York Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Maspeth New York

    State license is required for Asbestos Abatement. All other licensing is done at the local level. Businesses must register with the Secretary of State.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Associated Builders & Owners
    Local # 3392
    80 Maiden Lane Ste 1503
    New York, NY 10038

    Maspeth New York Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Queens & Bronx Building Association
    Local # 3365
    16-66 Bell Blvd #745
    Bayside, NY 11360

    Maspeth New York Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Long Island Builders Institute
    Local # 3324
    1757-8 Veterans Memorial Highway
    Islandia, NY 11749

    Maspeth New York Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    New York City Builders Association
    Local # 3354
    3225 Victory Blvd
    Staten Island, NY 10314

    Maspeth New York Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Rockland County Bldrs & Remodelers
    Local # 3342
    8 College Ave
    Nanuet, NY 10954

    Maspeth New York Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of the Hudson Valley
    Local # 3348
    1161 Little Britain Rd
    New Windsor, NY 12553

    Maspeth New York Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Southern Tier Home Builders & Rem Assoc
    Local # 3330
    2807 North St
    Endwell, NY 13760

    Maspeth New York Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Maspeth New York


    Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

    Construction Contractors Must Understand Retainage In 2021

    Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

    Keeping Up With Fast-moving FAA Drone Regulations

    Navigating the Diverging Landscape of Climate Disclosure Laws

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    Challenging Enforceability of Liquidated Damages (In Federal Construction Context)

    Five Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Establish Claim is Covered

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient

    Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

    Japan Quake Triggers Landslides, Knocks Power Plant Offline

    Suffolk and MassDOT Texts Played Role in State Contract Rebid Controversy

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.

    Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Significant California Public Utilities Suit

    I.M. Pei, Architect Who Designed Louvre Pyramid, Dies at 102

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

    US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    4 Breakthrough Panama Canal Engineering Innovations

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    50 State Matrices | 2026 Edition

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product
    Corporate Profile

    MASPETH NEW YORK CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Maspeth, New York Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Maspeth'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
    Maspeth, New York

    ACEC Supports BUILD America 250 Act as Important First Step on Surface Reauthorization

    May 26, 2026 —
    WASHINGTON -- The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the business voice of America’s engineering and design services industry released the following statement on the BUILD America 250 Act: "Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen have taken an important bipartisan step toward reauthorizing the federal surface transportation programs that are critical to economic growth in every state. The BUILD America 250 Act provides five years of stability in funding road and transit projects, raises new revenues to address the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and includes meaningful provisions to strengthen project delivery, advance digital infrastructure, and improve the contracting framework that engineering firms rely on every day. ACEC will continue to advocate for investment levels that keep pace with the country's growing infrastructure needs, and we urge the Committee to keep this process moving forward." The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of America’s engineering industry, representing more than 5,500 independent engineering firms and more than 650,000 professionals throughout the United States engaged in the development of America’s transportation, water, and energy infrastructure, along with environmental, industrial, and other public and private facilities. Founded in 1906 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., ACEC is a national federation of 51 state and regional organizations.

    Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment

    July 27, 2026 —
    A recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:
    Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”
    Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Course on Public Project Liens: Key Takeaways From Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners

    July 27, 2026 —
    On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and providing much-needed clarity regarding verified statements of claim (VSOCs) under the Colorado Public Works Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-26-101 et seq. The decision resolves two issues that have generated significant concern among construction industry professionals since the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 1, 2024. Under C.R.S. § 38-26-107(1), a subcontractor on a public works project may file a VSOC with the contracting public entity for amounts due and unpaid for “…furnished labor, materials, sustenance, or other supplies used or consumed by a contractor or his or her subcontractor in or about the performance of the work contracted to be done or that supplies laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment to the extent used in the prosecution of the work….” If a claimant files a VSOC for “an amount greater than the amount due” without a reasonable possibility that the amount is due and with knowledge that the claim is excessive, the claimant “shall forfeit all rights to the amount claimed” and becomes liable for the opposing party’s costs and attorneys’ fees. C.R.S. § 38-26-110. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com

    Endra Rethinks MEP Design with AI

    July 06, 2026 —
    Niklas Lindgren, co-founder and CEO of Endra, joins the AEC Business Podcast to discuss why his Stockholm-based startup is rebuilding MEP design from the ground up with AI. Endra recently raised $50 million in Series A funding and counts some of the world’s largest engineering consultancies as customers. Niklas explains why Revit’s underlying data model is too coarse to support deep automation, and why Endra built its own granular 3D data model instead of working as a plugin. He describes Endra’s “spatial AI” approach to routing conduit and ductwork without clashes, and how the platform models entire electrical systems, from receptacle to transformer, inside a single source of truth. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Sixth Circuit Revives Builder’s Risk Coverage, Refusing to Let Insurer Escape on a Technicality

    July 27, 2026 —
    In 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, the Sixth Circuit did something courts do not always do in coverage disputes: it refused to let an insurer avoid liability based on a technical policy condition that could never actually be satisfied. The decision is a straightforward reminder of two core principles. First, policies must be interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent insured. Second, hyper-technical conditions cannot be used to deny coverage where compliance is never possible. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@hunton.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@hunton.com Read the full story...

    Judge's Order Halts Google Data Center Project in Minnesota

    July 27, 2026 —
    Construction of a $1-billion Google data center planned by Ryan Cos. on 485 acres in southeastern Minnesota was expected to start in July but is now halted under a judge’s order. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com

    Key Person Provisions in Construction Contracts: Because People, Not Companies, Build Projects

    October 27, 2026 —
    In construction, the person running your job matters: the project manager who sat in your preconstruction meetings, who understands the phasing, who knows why the MEP coordination sequence was set up the way it was, who has relationships with your team and the owner’s team. That person is not interchangeable. And if they disappear six weeks into the job and get replaced by someone who’s never read the drawings, you have a problem. This happens all the time. A contractor or consultant sells the A-team—the experienced project manager; the sharp superintendent; the people who won the job—during the proposal and interview. Then, once the contract is signed, those people quietly get moved to a larger project, not out of anything nefarious, but usually out of a necessity. A fire happens on another project and they are needed to put it out. By the time you realize those working on your project aren’t the ones you originally signed on, you’re three months in and the damage is already underway. Reprinted courtesy of Nate Simon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
    Mr. Simon may be contacted at nate@simonlawky.com

    Emerging Issues in Construction CGL Insurance Part 2: The Separation of Insureds and Additional Insured Interests

    September 29, 2026 —
    Many coverage disputes hinge on first principles—the fundamentals of insurance —rather than the minutiae. Unfortunately, the basic anatomy of insurance policies can get lost sometimes when parties are laser-focused on a particular term or set of circumstances. This is true not just in disputes, but also when writing coverage. One of the fundamentals that is commonly misunderstood and overlooked—but which is absolutely critical to the intended operation of insurance coverage—is what is commonly known as the “separation of insureds.” The “separation of insureds” is the concept that each “insured” under a policy are referred to and treated differently, and most of all that the distinctions matter. The concept is usually included as a condition in the policy. It embodies the requirement that the policy applies to each insured distinctly from how it applies to other insureds. The ISO Form CGL policies specifically state that they apply “[s]eparately to each insured against whom a claim is made or ‘suit’ is brought.” The separate and distinct treatment of insureds is more critical in construction operations than anywhere else. This distinction is essential to ensure coverage works as intended, especially when contracted operations are involved, because the policy must insure the subcontractor that purchased the policy, the general contractor who hired the subcontractor, and the owner that hired the general contractor. Even small modifications can easily frustrate the intent of the parties. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, SDV Fenchurch
    Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at eric.clarkson@sdvfenchurch.us