BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Vidor Texas custom home expert witness Vidor Texas hospital construction expert witness Vidor Texas housing expert witness Vidor Texas condominium expert witness Vidor Texas high-rise construction expert witness Vidor Texas custom homes expert witness Vidor Texas retail construction expert witness Vidor Texas multi family housing expert witness Vidor Texas condominiums expert witness Vidor Texas landscaping construction expert witness Vidor Texas industrial building expert witness Vidor Texas townhome construction expert witness Vidor Texas parking structure expert witness Vidor Texas Subterranean parking expert witness Vidor Texas low-income housing expert witness Vidor Texas concrete tilt-up expert witness Vidor Texas office building expert witness Vidor Texas mid-rise construction expert witness Vidor Texas production housing expert witness Vidor Texas institutional building expert witness Vidor Texas casino resort expert witness Vidor Texas
    Vidor Texas expert witnesses fenestrationVidor Texas forensic architectVidor Texas construction claims expert witnessVidor Texas roofing construction expertVidor Texas construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessVidor Texas construction forensic expert witnessVidor Texas concrete expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Vidor, Texas

    Texas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 730 amended the Texas Property Code by adding Title 16 and amending chapter 27. Overseen by the Texas Residential Construction Commission (TRCC) the code asserts that a contractor is not liable for any percentage of damages caused by failure to take reasonable action to mitigate damages or take reasonable action to maintain the residence. It also limits damages, requires written notification and response for right of repair and defines warranty periods. Additionally, SB 754 states“(5-10 Sec. 27.107) a contractor may assert as an affirmative defense to an allegation of a defect made in a complaint filed under this subchapter that the defect is the result of abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the home.”


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Vidor Texas

    No state license is required, however, general contractors must get permits at the local level. Separate boards license HVAC, and plumbing trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of SE Texas
    Local # 4515
    5655 Eastex Freeway Ste M6A
    Beaumont, TX 77706

    Vidor Texas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Texas Association of Builders
    Local # 4500
    313 E 12th St Ste 210
    Austin, TX 78701

    Vidor Texas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Texas Hill Country Home Builders Association
    Local # 4580
    1444 Sidney Baker St
    Kerrville, TX 78028

    Vidor Texas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Austin
    Local # 4512
    8140 Exchange Dr
    Austin, TX 78754

    Vidor Texas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Greater Houston Builders Association
    Local # 4536
    9511 W Sam Houston Pkwy N
    Houston, TX 77064

    Vidor Texas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of the Highland Lakes
    Local # 4558
    1401 Broadway St Ste B1
    Marble Falls, TX 78654

    Vidor Texas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Bryan College Station
    Local # 4518
    230 Southwest Pkwy
    College Station, TX 77840

    Vidor Texas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Vidor Texas


    Handling Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Los Angeles Wildfires

    The Status of OSHA’s Impending Heat Stress Standard

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)

    Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Nader Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    Homebuilders Call for Housing Tax Incentives

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

    Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    GRSM New York Founding Partner Mercedes Colwin Honored with 2025 Excellence in Diversity Award by PLUS Foundation

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Consider The Limited Warranty from Your Homebuilder

    When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

    Substitute Materials — What Are Your Duties? What Are Your Risks? (Law Note)

    Why Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Green Jobs Plan

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

    The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level
    Corporate Profile

    VIDOR TEXAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Vidor, Texas Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Vidor, Texas

    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

    Tariffs As Taxes — What Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump Means for Contractors and the WSDOT Specifications

    March 17, 2026 —
    In October 2025, we explored a pressing question for public works contractors: should post-contract award tariffs be reimbursable? The crux of that analysis was whether tariffs imposed after contract award constitute a tax under the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications, triggering reimbursement under Section 1-07.1(5)B (“tax changes”). Since then, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump has clarified the legal nature of tariffs in a way that could significantly affect this debate. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the President had the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose broad tariffs on imports. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

    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

    Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: The Refund Process Will Be Messy

    March 10, 2026 —
    On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and the consolidated case Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs unilaterally.1 The decision invalidates both the “reciprocal” tariffs and the drug-trafficking tariffs imposed under IEEPA. For importers, the immediate question is whether, how, and when refunds can actually be obtained. On that issue, the U.S. Supreme Court provided no roadmap. To the contrary, the dissent warned that the United States “may be required to refund billions of dollars,” that the process is likely to be a “mess,” and that the majority opinion “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” Reprinted courtesy of Brett W. Johnson, Snell & Wilmer, Derek Flint, Snell & Wilmer, T. Troy Galan, Snell & Wilmer and Thomas Williams, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Johnson may be contacted at bwjohnson@swlaw.com Mr. Flint may be contacted at dflint@swlaw.com Mr. Galan may be contacted at tgalan@swlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at twilliams@swlaw.com> Read the full story...

    In the Eye of the Beholder: Court of Appeal Finds Duty of Care Owed by Owner and Contractors for Death of Minors Caused by Independent Truck Driver

    May 05, 2026 —
    I was a T.A. for my high school history teacher, a really smart and nice guy, Mr. Reynolds. In the room at the back of the classroom which served as his office he had the picture above. It’s called “My Wife and My Mother-in-Law” and is taken from a German postcard from 1888. Depending on how you look it, you might see fashionable young lady, or an old lady. Cases can sometimes be like that: You see what you want to see. The next case is also like that. In Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 49 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a motion for summary judgment granted in favor of an owner and its contractors in a case involving the death of two minors struck by a dump truck enroute to a non-permitted off-site staging area. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Navigating the New Frontier of Federal-State Energy Regulation: What Energy Companies Need to Know

    June 08, 2026 —
    Introduction The jurisdictional boundary between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the states is being actively contested, from challenges to landmark transmission planning rules to disputes over emergency cost-allocation orders, in ways that carry significant legal, financial, and operational implications for energy companies. For utilities, independent power producers, and transmission developers, understanding these dynamics is now a strategic imperative. The Jurisdictional Divide: A Bright Line That Isn’t The Federal Power Act divides authority between FERC and the states: FERC exercises jurisdiction over interstate transmission and wholesale electricity sales, while states retain authority over generation facilities, retail rates, and decisions about resource mix. The D.C. Circuit has regularly been called upon to “referee the Federal Power Act’s jurisdictional line separating [FERC’s] jurisdiction over the federal wholesale market and States’ jurisdiction over facilities used in local distribution.”1 Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan J. Regula, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Regula may be contacted at rregula@swlaw.com

    Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    June 23, 2026 —
    n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.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...