BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building expert witness Robertson County Tennessee townhome construction expert witness Robertson County Tennessee industrial building expert witness Robertson County Tennessee landscaping construction expert witness Robertson County Tennessee low-income housing expert witness Robertson County Tennessee retail construction expert witness Robertson County Tennessee hospital construction expert witness Robertson County Tennessee structural steel construction expert witness Robertson County Tennessee parking structure expert witness Robertson County Tennessee condominiums expert witness Robertson County Tennessee Medical building expert witness Robertson County Tennessee concrete tilt-up expert witness Robertson County Tennessee casino resort expert witness Robertson County Tennessee production housing expert witness Robertson County Tennessee condominium expert witness Robertson County Tennessee tract home expert witness Robertson County Tennessee custom homes expert witness Robertson County Tennessee high-rise construction expert witness Robertson County Tennessee office building expert witness Robertson County Tennessee Subterranean parking expert witness Robertson County Tennessee mid-rise construction expert witness Robertson County Tennessee multi family housing expert witness Robertson County Tennessee
    Robertson County Tennessee construction claims expert witnessRobertson County Tennessee construction scheduling expert witnessRobertson County Tennessee contractor expert witnessRobertson County Tennessee structural engineering expert witnessesRobertson County Tennessee construction expert witness public projectsRobertson County Tennessee construction code expert witnessRobertson County Tennessee soil failure expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Robertson County, Tennessee

    Tennessee Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (HB 2787/SB2931 & HB 2771/SB 2201; Title 66, Chptr 36) Homeowners must serve written notice of a defect 15 days after its discovery; Contractors, upon receipt of the notice, have 10 business days to inspect the residence and inform any subcontractors it believes are reasonably responsible on the defect. Within 10 business days after notice of the claim, the subcontractor must serve a written response to contractor. Within 30 days after receipt of notice of a defect, the contractor must provide written notice of intention (repair, replace, monetarily compensate or reject) to the homeowner.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Robertson County Tennessee

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Clarksville-Montgomery Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 4406
    PO Box 1167
    Clarksville, TN 37041

    Robertson County Tennessee Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Gr Kingsport
    Local # 4445
    1200 E Sevier Ave
    Kingsport, TN 37664

    Robertson County Tennessee Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Johnson City Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 4494
    1001 N Roan St
    Johnson City, TN 37601

    Robertson County Tennessee Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Greene County Chapter of National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 4464
    70 Afton Road
    Afton, TN 37616
    Robertson County Tennessee Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Tennessee
    Local # 4400
    213 5th Ave N Ste 200
    Nashville, TN 37219

    Robertson County Tennessee Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Upper Cumberland
    Local # 4491
    PO Box 243
    Cookeville, TN 38503

    Robertson County Tennessee Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Dyer Co
    Local # 4425
    1075 Cooper Dr
    Dyersburg, TN 38024
    Robertson County Tennessee Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Robertson County Tennessee

    Corporate Profile

    ROBERTSON COUNTY TENNESSEE CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Robertson County, Tennessee 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 Robertson County'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
    Robertson County, Tennessee

    California Poised for the Most Significant Residential Construction Defect Reforms in Decades

    September 01, 2026 —
    The California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims. If enacted, the legislation would affect virtually every stage of a construction defect dispute- from the initial notice of claim through litigation and settlement- and would introduce an entirely new certification process for newly constructed condominium projects. This article details some of the most significant proposed changes. Higher Burden for Construction Defect Plaintiffs Perhaps the most consequential change is the bill's modification of the proof required to establish liability. current law generally requires a claimant to demonstrate the residence fails to satisfy one of the statutory performance standards established under the Right to Repair Act. AB1903 would instead require claimants to establish three separate elements:
    • A violation of an applicable statutory performance standard;
    • The violation caused appreciable, present, non-speculative physical damage to another building component; and
    • The violation resulted from the original construction.
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas D. Fama, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Andrew J. Mallon, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Fama may be contacted at tfama@wshblaw.com Mr. Mallon may be contacted at amallon@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

    Samuel Alhadeff Represents LGI Homes in Acquisition and Re-Entitlement of Maravilla Estates

    July 06, 2026 —
    Temecula Partner Samuel Alhadeff recently represented LGI Homes in its acquisition and re-entitlement of Maravilla Estates, a 169-lot active adult community located in San Jacinto, California. The acquisition and re-entitlement of the project provide LGI Homes with the opportunity to deliver much-needed age-qualified housing in one of Riverside County's growing residential markets. The community includes a recorded final map and finished lots, as well as future development inventory and planned amenities, positioning the project for continued development and completion. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Substantial Evidence of Flood Loss is Not a Substitute for Required Proof of Loss

    April 20, 2026 —
    The court found that the insurer properly denied the insured’s claim for loss due to flood because a proof of loss was never submitted. Bay Haven at Coco Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6847 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2026). Bay Haven managed several condo buildings. When Hurricane Ian hit, it caused significant flood damage to these properties. Bay Haven held federal flood insurance policies through Hartford under “Write-Your-Own” policies. This meant Hartford was essentially a fiscal agent that managed policies and handled claims but paid them using federal funds. Following the storm, FEMA extended the usual 60-day deadline for filing a proof of loss to one year, or until September 28, 2023. Bay Haven did not submit its proofs of loss until November 2023. FEMA granted an extension but only for the specific amounts in the November requests. Hartford did not waive the 60-day proof of loss requirement for any other proof of loss. Hartford paid the amounts reflected in the November submissions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    2026 Top Business Risks for Construction and Engineering Companies

    May 26, 2026 —
    The 2026 Allianz Risk Barometer revealed some surprising findings for construction and engineering businesses. Now in its fifteenth year, this annual business risk ranking by corporate insurer Allianz Commercial incorporates the views of 3,338 global risk management professionals on the main perils on their radar for the year. Survey respondents included construction and engineering risk experts who identified the threats keeping them up at night. Here is how they ranked the top industry risks for 2026: Natural Catastrophes Natural catastrophe risk retains the top spot, with 38% of construction and engineering respondents citing this risk as their leading concern for 2026. From the insurance perspective, economic and insured losses remained high, albeit lower than the 10-year average. The evolving nature of natural catastrophes continues to pose significant challenges to businesses and the (re)insurance industry. Insured losses from natural catastrophes are set to reach $107 billion for 2025, according to Swiss Re—the sixth year in a row they have exceeded $100 billion, while economic losses are well in excess of $200 billion. Reprinted courtesy of Darren Tasker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

    Utah’s Emerging Framework for Responsible Data Center Development

    September 08, 2026 —
    Utah is establishing itself as one of the nation’s most attractive jurisdictions for large-scale data center development, with a structured, defensible regulatory pathway that gives developers and investors the clarity needed to deploy capital at scale. The cornerstone is Executive Order 2026-03, “Establishing a Higher Bar for Data Center Development in Utah,” signed by Governor Spencer J. Cox on May 29, 2026. The Executive Order creates an actionable compliance framework letting developers demonstrate stewardship across water, air quality, energy, wildlife, and community engagement – reducing regulatory and reputational risk. Recent enactments on energy self-supply and water rights operationalize these principles, while a few counties have adopted short-term local moratoria to update zoning; understanding how these interact with the state framework matters for site selection. Reprinted courtesy of Denise A. Dragoo, Snell & Wilmer and Josh Miller, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Dragoo may be contacted at ddragoo@swlaw.com Mr. Miller may be contacted at jmiller@swlaw.com Read the full story...

    Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role

    May 12, 2026 —
    I once visited a construction site where the contractor’s headquarters had commissioned a tech company to build an on-site quality-inspection application. The developer had admitted to the site engineer that they had never set foot on a construction site before. The engineer showed me what he was actually using: his own phone camera and an Excel sheet. The new app did not map to how work actually happened on site. This is not an isolated story. The vendor builds something technically coherent but operationally disconnected. The client, somewhere up the chain, had fallen in love with the idea of the solution before anyone had built an honest business case for it. The result is a tool that gets demonstrated at a board meeting but isn’t used in the field. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Pay-If-Paid: What You Need to Know Before Signing on the Dotted Line

    August 03, 2026 —
    Buried deep in the fine print of a subcontract, a pay-if-paid clause may be looming. If you are a subcontractor or supplier, misreading these clauses can put your cash flow at risk. If you are an owner or general contractor, drafting them incorrectly can leave you with obligations you never intended — or unenforceable protections you were counting on. It is more important than ever to understand when pay-if-paid clauses hold up and when they do not, as well as recent litigation and drafting trends. Whether you are negotiating a new agreement, reviewing your standard form contracts, or staring down a payment dispute, understanding how Arizona law treats pay-if-paid clauses is essential. In this article, we break down key considerations, walk through the legal standards Arizona courts apply, and offer practical tips to consider to help you protect your payment rights on the next project. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer and Matthew Racioppo, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com Mr. Racioppo may be contacted at mracioppo@swlaw.com Read the full story...

    Inaccurate Representations Can Lead to Differing Site Conditions Claim

    May 26, 2026 —
    In the prior posting, I discussed a case dealing with a differing site condition. In that case, the owner did not have an affirmative duty to make a representation and there was no inaccurate representation made by the owner that misled the contractor. Well, what about when there is an inaccurate misrepresentation regarding the site? This was the circumstance in an older Florida case where a dredging contractor had a successful differing site conditions claim. See Jacksonville Port Authority v. Parkhill-Goodloe, Co., Inc., 362 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The government provided inaccurate information as to the lack of rock that would be encountered during the dredging that was relied on by the dredging contractor. But the government had “superior knowledge” that there was rock in an adjacent location based on a prior claim from a contractor, yet the government did not disclose the possibility that rock could be encountered. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com