BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Richlands North Carolina mid-rise construction expert witness Richlands North Carolina Medical building expert witness Richlands North Carolina housing expert witness Richlands North Carolina parking structure expert witness Richlands North Carolina high-rise construction expert witness Richlands North Carolina low-income housing expert witness Richlands North Carolina structural steel construction expert witness Richlands North Carolina custom home expert witness Richlands North Carolina multi family housing expert witness Richlands North Carolina townhome construction expert witness Richlands North Carolina Subterranean parking expert witness Richlands North Carolina office building expert witness Richlands North Carolina industrial building expert witness Richlands North Carolina concrete tilt-up expert witness Richlands North Carolina custom homes expert witness Richlands North Carolina condominium expert witness Richlands North Carolina casino resort expert witness Richlands North Carolina hospital construction expert witness Richlands North Carolina tract home expert witness Richlands North Carolina production housing expert witness Richlands North Carolina institutional building expert witness Richlands North Carolina
    Richlands North Carolina defective construction expertRichlands North Carolina structural engineering expert witnessesRichlands North Carolina forensic architectRichlands North Carolina construction scheduling expert witnessRichlands North Carolina expert witness windowsRichlands North Carolina construction expert witness public projectsRichlands North Carolina eifs expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Richlands, North Carolina

    North Carolina Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Case law precedent


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Richlands North Carolina

    A contractor's license is required for all jobs over $30,000.00. Separate boards license plumbing and electrical trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Scotland County Home Builders Chapter
    Local # 3477
    PO Box 278
    Laurinburg, NC 28353
    Richlands North Carolina Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Richmond Co Home Builders Chapter
    Local # 3456
    P O Box 592
    Rockingham, NC 28380
    Richlands North Carolina Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Carteret County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3414
    PO Box 1348
    Morehead City, NC 28557

    Richlands North Carolina Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Onslow Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 3445
    825 Gum Branch Rd Ste 136
    Jacksonville, NC 28540

    Richlands North Carolina Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Sampson Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 3496
    PO Box 67
    Clinton, NC 28329
    Richlands North Carolina Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Union County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3403
    2560 W Roosevelt Blvd Ste A
    Monroe, NC 28110

    Richlands North Carolina Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Jackson County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3474
    PO Box 1073
    Cashiers, NC 28717

    Richlands North Carolina Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Richlands North Carolina


    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    “You Can’t Climb a Tile Wall”

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Ninth Circuit Clarifies Viability of Takings Claims Under Arizona’s Unclaimed Property Act

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    EEOC Sues Schuff Steel, J.A. Croson in New Racial Harassment Cases

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City

    Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out

    When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a C-. It’s an Improvement Though

    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    “Don’t Coblentz - You Might Miss It!”

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    Architect Sues School District

    Berger: FIGG Is Slow To Hand Over All Bridge Collapse Data

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    The AVOID Act: A New Timeline for Liability in New York Construction Projects

    Henderson Engineers Tests AI for Building Systems Design with Torch.AI

    It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Shane Singh Named One of Los Angeles Business Journal's 'Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles' for 2026

    Why Builders Should Reconsider Arbitration Clauses in Construction Contracts

    To Ease Housing Crunch, Theme Parks Are Becoming Homebuilders

    The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

    Don’t Spoil Me: Oklahoma District Court Rules Against Spoliation Sanctions

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    How a Maryland County Created the Gold Standard for Building Emissions Reduction

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat
    Corporate Profile

    RICHLANDS NORTH CAROLINA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions

    May 12, 2026 —
    Contract drafting and interpretation matters. A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language. But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:
    Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Attorneys and Practices

    August 11, 2026 —
    PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its attorneys have received 57 individual recognitions in their respective fields, by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2026. These prestigious rankings are driven by independent interviews with clients of the firm and members of the legal community. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

    Insurer’s Federal Suit Dismissed in Favor of Insured’s State Suit

    April 14, 2026 —
    The federal district court granted the insured’s motion to dismiss the insurer’s federal suit for declaratory judgment because the insured filed a more complete action in state court. Church Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elmwood Baptist Church, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 259762 (S.D. W.V. Dec. 16, 2025). Elmwood purchased a property policy from Church Mutual Insurance Company. After the roof of Elmwood’s property collapsed, the parties disputed the amount Church Mutual owed to Elmwood. Church Mutual filed suit in federal district court asking for a declaration that the policy was “void ab initio,’ or, alternatively, that Church had fully compensated Elmwood for its loss. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Late Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Wind Damage

    June 29, 2026 —
    The court found that a six-month delay in reporting damage from wind did not comply with the policy’s notice requirements. Touchmark Hotel Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61910 (S.D. N. Y. March 24, 2026). A storm caused damage to Touchstone’s hotel on January 4, 2023. Touchstone’s corporate representative, Rohit Patel, testified that he was not at the property on the day of the storm. In a telephone call the next day, the manager of the property reported to Patel that he observed detached shingles from the roof the hotel in the parking lot. Patel testified that he did not file a claim at that time because Touchmark’s employees did not detect any water leakage in the building and because he did not believe that the cost of the damage from the storm would exceed the policy’s deductible. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    4th Department Narrowly Interprets Professional Services

    August 11, 2026 —
    In the recent case of Cty. of Erie v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2026 NY Slip Op 04092 (App. Div. 4th Dept.), New York’s Appellate Division, Fourth Department held that a general liability carrier for a construction manager owed additional insured coverage to the County of Erie, notwithstanding an exclusion in the construction manager’s policy for injuries arising out of professional services. The underlying case involved injuries sustained when the underlying plaintiff fell off of her bicycle at a park owned by the County when she transitioned from the pavement edge to grass. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    Shane Singh Named One of Los Angeles Business Journal's 'Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles' for 2026

    April 27, 2026 —
    Sacramento Partner Shane Singh has been named one of the Los Angeles Business Journal's "Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles" for 2026. The LABJ’s annual list honors Los Angeles' top lawyers for their achievements within the city's business community. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season

    April 08, 2026 —
    Artificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency. What often lags behind, however, is the contract framework governing how those tools are used—and how their outputs are treated when something goes wrong. On sophisticated construction projects, that gap can quickly become a dispute driver. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
    Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com

    Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits

    May 12, 2026 —
    In the case of County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com Read the full story...