BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania Medical building expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania condominiums expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania high-rise construction expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania Subterranean parking expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania townhome construction expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania mid-rise construction expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania tract home expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania housing expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania custom home expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania casino resort expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania landscaping construction expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania parking structure expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania multi family housing expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania condominium expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania hospital construction expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania low-income housing expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania industrial building expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania custom homes expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania production housing expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania structural steel construction expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania concrete tilt-up expert witness East Freedom Pennsylvania
    East Freedom Pennsylvania building consultant expertEast Freedom Pennsylvania construction defect expert witnessEast Freedom Pennsylvania OSHA expert witness constructionEast Freedom Pennsylvania engineering expert witnessEast Freedom Pennsylvania construction project management expert witnessesEast Freedom Pennsylvania construction expert witnessEast Freedom Pennsylvania window expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    East Freedom, 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 East Freedom Pennsylvania

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Harrisburg
    Local # 3924
    2416 Park Drive
    Harrisburg, PA 17110

    East Freedom Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of the Alleghenies
    Local # 3928
    1397 Eisenhower Blvd Suite 201
    Johnstown, PA 15904

    East Freedom Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Berks County
    Local # 3948
    25 Stevens Ave
    West Lawn, PA 19609

    East Freedom Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lebanon County Bldrs Assn
    Local # 3938
    39 Klein Avenue
    Lebanon, PA 17042

    East Freedom Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Pennsylvania Builders Association
    Local # 3900
    600 N 12th St
    Lemoyne, PA 17043

    East Freedom Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Blair-Bedford Builders Association
    Local # 3908
    1410 Allegheny Street
    Hollidaysburg, PA 16648

    East Freedom Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Metro Pittsburgh
    Local # 3944
    2041 Blvd Of The Allies
    Pittsburgh, PA 15219

    East Freedom Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For East Freedom Pennsylvania


    Hundreds Celebrated the Grand Opening of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California Riverside Construction Training Center

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    AI Can Now Train the Soft Skills Construction Ignored

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

    CA Civil Code § 8850: What Private Multi-state Owners and Developers Building in California in 2026 Need to Know

    Cross-Office Team Secures Defense Verdict in Favor of Client in Asbestos Case

    Julie Firestone & Francois Ecclesiaste Recognized as 2023 MSBA North Star Lawyers

    Anthony Garasi, Jared Christensen and August Hotchkin are Recognized as Nevada Legal Elite

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    New Law Limits Withheld Retention on Qualified Private Works Projects to 5% Effective 2026

    Building and Landscape Standards Enacted in Response to the Governor's Mandatory Water Restrictions Dealing with the Drought and Possible Effects of El Niño

    How to Fix America

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    It’s Called “Delegation” – Basic Risks and Considerations for Delegated Design on Projects

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

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

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    Court Invalidates Project Labor Agreement Mandate on Federal Construction Projects

    Application of Frye Test to Determine Admissibility of Expert

    Why the Renovation of Federal Reserve Headquarters Costs $2.5 Billion

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Discovery Requests in Bad Faith Litigation Considered by Court

    How Not to Frustrate an Arbitrator: Common Mistakes Attorneys Should Avoid in Arbitration

    Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    GRSM Ranks Among World’s 70 Largest Law Firms in 2025 Global 200 Rankings

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?

    Contractors’ Right to Sue in Washington Requires Registration
    Corporate Profile

    EAST FREEDOM PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The East Freedom, 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 East Freedom'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
    East Freedom, Pennsylvania

    Building the Research and Healthcare Facilities of Tomorrow Without Impacting the Progress of Today

    August 16, 2026 —
    Research labs run experiments that can’t be paused. Hospitals treat patients around the clock. Yet these same facilities constantly need upgrades—new infrastructure, modernized systems, renovated spaces—to meet the demands of twenty-first century science and medicine. The challenge for construction teams isn’t just building. It’s building without ever turning the lights off. This unique dynamic creates an environment where construction activities are happening adjacent to sensitive testing and treatment, a complex setting where disruptions can have serious consequences. Skanska continues to successfully navigate these challenges across multiple sectors, including from occupied lab space at the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s (NCDEQ) Reedy Creek Laboratory in Raleigh to hospital corridors alongside staff and patients in various hospital locations across the country. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Tobias, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

    Achieving Sustainability Through Design Build Delivery: Part II – A Framework for Managing Sustainability Objectives on Private Commercial Construction

    October 06, 2026 —
    Part I of this series traced the history and development of sustainability in construction and explained why design-build (“DB”) contracting is particularly well suited to achieve sustainability objectives. But selecting DB contracting does not by itself ensure a sustainable outcome. The parties must define their sustainability objectives with precision, establish measurable performance criteria and identify who will measure compliance with the criteria, and also draft contract terms that clearly and fairly allocate the associated responsibilities and risks. Otherwise, the completed project may fall short of its sustainability objectives and expose the parties to claims, disputes, and litigation. Part II offers a non-exhaustive list of practical guidance for addressing these issues and reducing those risks. This article references the ConsensusDocs 310 Green Building Addendum, in conjunction with an agreement between the Owner and the Design-Builder (e.g., ConsensusDocs 415)[1], [2] and AIA Document E204–2017 Sustainable Projects Exhibit,[3] together with AIA A141,[4] as its contractual baseline. The five-part framework that follows is a roadmap for allocating sustainability risk between private owners and design-builders: define the requirements, identify hidden performance guarantees, map out the sustainable objective, address third-party certification risk, and track performance against agreed benchmarks. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joshua Pruett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com Mr. Pruett may be contacted at jpruett@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

    Flatiron Said Disputed Concrete Mix Cost Millions on Large Caltrans Project

    June 22, 2026 —
    For awhile in 2023, part of the California Dept. of Transportation's (Caltrans) Fix 50 HOV lane and resurfacing project in Sacramento itself needed to be fixed. Reprinted courtesy of Elaine Silver, Engineering News-Record and Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

    U.S. Supreme Court Decision Alters Course of $745M Louisiana Coastal Damage Judgment

    June 15, 2026 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing oil and gas companies to move Louisiana coastal erosion lawsuits from state court to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. While the ruling is procedural, it carries significant implications for environmental- and energy-related risks. The case, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Slip Op. 24-813 (April 17, 2026), addressed a threshold jurisdictional question but has broader significance for environmental and climate related litigation. State courts are often viewed as more favorable forums for plaintiffs asserting environmental damage claims, particularly those brought by governmental entities. The opinion issued on April 17, 2026 is the latest development in long-running Louisiana coastal litigation that began more than a decade ago. Starting in 2013, Louisiana parishes filed 42 lawsuits against oil and gas companies alleging environmental damage related to historic oil field operations. The parishes alleged that oil and gas companies violated state coastal management laws by failing to properly restore impacted areas. Chevron sought to remove the cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), known as federal officer removal, which provides federal jurisdiction over “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument and remanded the case, and others like it, to state court. Trial began in March 2025 in Point à la Hache, Louisiana. On April 4, 2025, the jury awarded a total of $745 million to compensate for land loss, contamination and abandoned equipment. On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the question of whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Kretschmann, Lewis Brisbois and Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Kretschmann may be contacted at Jennifer.Kretschmann@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

    One Industry, One Goal: Construction Safety Week 2026

    May 05, 2026 —
    Construction safety has long been a top priority across the industry. Yet fatality rates have remained stubbornly flat for more than a decade. Steven Carter, global health and safety director at Gilbane chair company for Construction Safety Week 2026—believes the industry has reached a pivotal moment. This year’s theme—”All In Together: Recognize. Respond. Respect.”—is a unified call to action for owners, designers, contractors and craft professionals around a shared, risk-based approach to preventing serious injuries and fatalities. In a recent interview with Construction Executive, Carter discusses why the industry must move beyond incremental improvements, how technology and AI can support better planning and what it will take to create a true culture of psychological safety on jobsites. Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

    The Best Lawyers in America® - Ball Janik Attorneys Earn Multiple Recognitions

    September 01, 2026 —
    Orlando, FL, August 20, 2026 – Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce that 24 of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. The 33rd Best Lawyers edition recognitions are based on peer review and highlight attorneys across a range of practice areas. This recognition underscores the broad experience Ball Janik's attorneys bring to the firm's construction defect practice. "We're proud to be recognized by Best Lawyers again this year," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "These honors reflect the expertise and depth of our team, our continued growth across Florida, and our commitment to providing strong counsel to clients in complex construction, insurance recovery, and litigation matters." Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® include: Keegan A. Berry — Construction Law Brian T. Crevasse — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Todd Demetriades — Litigation - Construction Joseph R. Fitos — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Megan A. Picataggio — Construction Law Jon E. Lemole — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Salvatore G. Scro — Construction Law Nicholas B. Vargo — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Kelly M. Corcoran — Construction Law Gabriel Z. Coelho — Construction Law Evan J. Small — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Franchesco Soto — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Phillip E. Joseph — Litigation - Construction; Real Estate Law James C. Prichard — Construction Law Ball Janik attorneys recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America include: Nicholas Passantino — Litigation - Construction Amanda L. Gonzalez — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Morgan N. Lester — Litigation - Construction Chris S. Tribbey — Construction Law Kyle Bugden — Construction Law; Litigation - Construction Brian Tannenbaum — Construction Law Kayla Mosquera — Insurance Law Natasha L. Biela — Commercial Litigation Elijah C. Waring, Jr. — Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Greg K. Demers — Construction Law About Ball Janik LLP Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 70-plus attorneys and paralegals in five offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, including for its construction law capabilities in Florida, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, Super Lawyers, and Corporate International. Read more at www.balljanik.com.

    Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split

    May 14, 2026 —
    Advertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests. Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP, David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com Read the full story...

    Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

    April 20, 2026 —
    In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com