BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania retail construction expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania institutional building expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania office building expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania hospital construction expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania high-rise construction expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania landscaping construction expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania townhome construction expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania parking structure expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania production housing expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania concrete tilt-up expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania custom home expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania mid-rise construction expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania condominium expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania multi family housing expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania tract home expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania condominiums expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania industrial building expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania casino resort expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania structural steel construction expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania custom homes expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania low-income housing expert witness Aaronsburg Pennsylvania
    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania expert witness structural engineerAaronsburg Pennsylvania consulting architect expert witnessAaronsburg Pennsylvania construction code expert witnessAaronsburg Pennsylvania civil engineer expert witnessAaronsburg Pennsylvania construction defect expert witnessAaronsburg Pennsylvania construction defect expert witnessAaronsburg Pennsylvania stucco expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Aaronsburg, Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 1875 stipulates that “no later than 90 days before filing an action, serve written notice of claim on the contractor. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 15 days to forward the claim to any subcontractor/supplier and 30 days after service of notice to offer to compromise and settle the claim by monetary payment without inspection, propose to inspect the dwelling that is the subject of the claim; or reject the claim. Contractor has 14 days after inspection to provide written notice of intention.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Aaronsburg Pennsylvania

    No state license required. For public works projects, see General Services website.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Pocono Builders Association (PA)
    Local # 3939
    745 Main St Ste 203
    Stroudsburg, PA 18360

    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Central Susquehanna Builders Association
    Local # 3956
    300 Walnut St
    Mifflinburg, PA 17844

    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lawrence County Builders Association
    Local # 3937
    1435 Devils Elbow Rd
    New Castle, PA 16101

    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Central PA
    Local # 3952
    2038 Sandy Drive Ste 100
    State College, PA 16803

    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Carbon Bldrs Association
    Local # 3922
    PO Box 218 490 Ore Street
    Bowmanstown, PA 18030

    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Clearfield County Chapter
    Local # 3903
    PO Box 512
    Clearfield, PA 16830

    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Gr Dubois Area
    Local # 3959
    PO Box 664
    Du Bois, PA 15801
    Aaronsburg Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Aaronsburg Pennsylvania


    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds

    Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

    Congratulations to Partner Vik Nagpal on his Nomination for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Quick Note: Termination for Convenience Provisions Give a Party Broad Discretion to End a Contractual Relationship

    Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Chambers USA Recognizes GRSM as 2026 Industry Leader

    Calling the Shots

    “Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

    Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

    Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

    No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

    Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    $109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station

    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    Commercial Construction in the Golden State is Looking Pretty Golden

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    Don't Count On a Housing Slowdown to Improve Affordability

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    The Brooklyn Condominium That’s Reinventing Outdoor Common Space

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Quick Note: Burden of Proving and Defending All Risk Property Insurance Claims

    Don’t Breach Your Contract, but If You Do, Don’t Breach First

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

    Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

    Construction Robots 2023

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

    5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence
    Corporate Profile

    AARONSBURG PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Aaronsburg, Pennsylvania 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Aaronsburg'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
    Aaronsburg, Pennsylvania

    Turning Expert Services into Products

    July 20, 2026 —
    A Finnish engineering, architecture, and project consulting company, AINS Group, recently opened an online store to purchase fixed-price services. The store presents specialist work in a product-like format, with fixed service names, defined scopes, and visible prices, such as a building history report, a zoning plan cost analysis, and a technical preliminary survey for a property transaction. Is this productization a smart move or a sign that expert services are being commoditized? Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    White and Williams LLP Recognized on the List of Largest Law Firms in Greater Philadelphia

    March 03, 2026 —
    White and Williams LLP was recently recognized on the list of Largest Law Firms in Greater Philadelphia by the Philadelphia Business Journal. The Firm is ranked #10 among the largest law firms in the Greater Philadelphia area. This listing ranks over 500 law firms in the counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, or Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, or Gloucester in New Jersey, and Kent or New Castle in Delaware. White and Williams has been named on the list since 2023. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

    July 13, 2026 —
    On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

    HHMR Honored as a 2026 Denver Business Journal Best Places to Work Recipient

    March 10, 2026 —
    We are pleased to share that Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell has been named a 2026 Denver Business Journal Best Places to Work honoree, a recognition grounded entirely in direct feedback from our own team members. The Denver Business Journal Best Places to Work program, in partnership with Quantum Workplace, ranks organizations based on anonymous employee engagement survey results that measure culture, leadership, communication, trust, team dynamics, and satisfaction. This year’s list includes 65 companies across the Denver metropolitan area, judged by the people who know these workplaces best: their employees. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Integration Can Inoculate in Utah

    July 20, 2026 —
    The Utah Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed, in the construction context, Utah’s strict approach to enforcing integration clauses to preclude parol evidence and other legal theories that would vary the written terms of a contract. In Reid v. All Surface LC, 2025 UT App 134, decided last September, the court affirmed in all respects the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the strength of an integration clause against a homeowner who sued a contractor for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. More recently, however, the same court rejected those same arguments in Tidwell v. Jensen, 2026 UT App 13 as to tort claims arising from a used car sale. The facts in Reid were sympathetic to the plaintiff. After being told she had a mold issue near a defective basement shower, the plaintiff solicited bids. A remediation contractor advised that while it could address the mold, the shower replacement should be handled by someone else. The plaintiff contacted All Surface LC, a shower replacement contractor. During an interview, the sales representative stated that All Surface could “do full mold remediation, tear everything out, and reframe the shower.” The plaintiff ultimately retained All Surface, expecting it would both resolve the mold issues and replace the shower. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com

    Contractor Entitled to Defense Under Subcontractor’s Policy

    March 10, 2026 —
    The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the contractor’s insurer finding that the sumcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend the contractor. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. TBR Construction, LLC, et al., 2025 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2177 (Ill. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025). Greenscape Homes, LLC was the general contractor for a residential development. Greenscape hired TBR Construction, LLC as a carpentry-framing subcontractor pursuant to a “Trade Contractor Agreement.” The Trade Agreement required TBR to name Greenscape as an additional insured. TBR was insured by Utica. Greenscape was insured by Navigators. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Damage from Frozen Pipes Excluded from Coverage

    March 31, 2026 —
    Applying Texas law, the federal district court found there was no coverage for damage to the insured’s commercial building due to the bursting of frozen pipes. Barona v. State Farm Lloyds, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257379 (S.D. Texas Dec. 12, 2025). Freezing weather froze Barona’s plumbing fixtures, causing significant water damage to the commercial property when the plumbing eventually expanded and burst. State Farm sent an inspector. During the inspection, Barona stated that he turned off the heat to his building but did not shut off the water supply or drain the pipes. State Farm denied covered based on the policy’s exclusion for frozen plumbing. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    That’s a Wrap! Pennsylvania Court Holds Arbitration Clause in Online Agreement Unenforceable

    May 14, 2026 —
    In Duffy v. Tatum, 2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, 2026 PA Super 41, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether an arbitration provision contained in the online Terms of Service on the defendant’s website were enforceable. The plaintiff, Daniel Duffy (Duffy), visited the website of defendant, Dolly, Inc. (Dolly), to purchase moving services. Duffy selected the number of movers, items to be moved and the type of vehicle needed. To complete the booking, the website required Duffy to checkmark a box labeled “By checking this box I accept the Dolly Terms of Service.” Duffy did not have to open the link or scroll to the bottom of the agreement before being able to click on the checkmark box. The Terms of Service included an arbitration provision requiring that any dispute related to the moving services to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the American Arbitration Association. The Terms of Service did not include any statement that the user was waiving the right to a jury trial. The Superior Court found the internet Terms of Service unenforceable. During the moving process, an accident occurred and injured Duffy. In May 2024, Duffy and his wife sued Dolly and other related entities alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Dolly filed preliminary objections alleging that the parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections, finding that Dolly’s website did not provide reasonably obvious notice of its Terms of Service to Duffy and, as such, Duffy never agreed to waive his constructional right to a jury trial. Dolly filed an appeal to the Superior Court. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com