BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home Building Consultant Anvik Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Anvik Alaska production housing Building Consultant Anvik Alaska industrial building Building Consultant Anvik Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Anvik Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Anvik Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Anvik Alaska mid-rise construction Building Consultant Anvik Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Anvik Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Anvik Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Anvik Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Anvik Alaska condominium Building Consultant Anvik Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Anvik Alaska office building Building Consultant Anvik Alaska custom home Building Consultant Anvik Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Anvik Alaska condominiums Building Consultant Anvik Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Anvik Alaska retail construction Building Consultant Anvik Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant Anvik Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Anvik Alaska
    Anvik Alaska construction expert witness public projectsAnvik Alaska building expertAnvik Alaska construction claims expert witnessAnvik Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessAnvik Alaska construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAnvik Alaska architecture expert witnessAnvik Alaska structural engineering expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Anvik, Alaska

    Alaska Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB151 limits the damages that can be awarded in a construction defect lawsuit to the actual cost of fixing the defect and other closely related costs such as reasonable temporary housing expenses during the repair of the defect, any reduction in market value cause by the defect, and reasonable and necessary attorney fees.


    Building Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anvik Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Anvik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    609 S KNIK GOOSE BAY RD STE G
    Wasilla, AK 99654

    Anvik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Anvik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Anchorage
    Local # 0215
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Anvik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Kenai Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 0233
    PO Box 1753
    Kenai, AK 99611

    Anvik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Northern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0225
    9085 Glacier Highway Ste 202
    Juneau, AK 99801

    Anvik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Anvik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Anvik Alaska


    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    Reminder: A Little Pain Now Can Save a Lot of Pain Later

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Last Parcel of Rancho del Oro Masterplan Purchased by Cornerstone Communties

    Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

    Carolinas Storm Damage Tally Impeded by Lingering Floods

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    It’s Time to Change the Way You Think About Case Complexity

    Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List

    Houston Bond Issue Jump-Starts 237 Flood Control Projects

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Hong Kong Popping Housing Bubbles London Can’t Handle

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    The ARC and The Covenants

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    Contractor Beware: Design-Build Firms Must Review Washington’s Licensing Requirements

    Spearin Doctrine 100 Years Old and Still Thriving in the Design-Build Delivery World

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Homebuilding Still on the Rise

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design
    Corporate Profile

    ANVIK ALASKA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Anvik, Alaska Building Consultant Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Anvik'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.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Anvik, Alaska

    Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

    October 07, 2019 —
    The court denied Daubert motions for several experts with the exception of Professor Stempel's expert testimony opining that the insurer did not act in bad faith Adell Plastics, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102942 (D. Md. June 19, 2019). A fire demolished several buildings at Adell's facility. Adell was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Mt. Hawley sued Adell, seeking a declaration that it owed no coverage, and requesting recoupment of a substantial advance payment. Adell filed a counterclaim, alleging that Mt. Hawley had breached the policy and had acted with a lack of good faith. Before the court were several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude testimony of eight expert witnesses. The court denied Adell's motion to exclude several experts to be called by Mt. Hawley. The accountant's testimony was relevant. Adell had to prove damages on its breach of contract claim, and the accountant's testimony would aid the jury in evaluating Adell's documentation and calculating documented damages. Mt. Hawley's fire safety expert investigated the Adell fire. Mt. Hawley had shown that his expert opinion would be sufficiently reliable for admissibility. Further, three fire protection engineers offered by Mt. Hawley and two fire protection engineers to be called by Adell were allowed to testify. Each expert based his investigation and conclusions on the standards of fire investigation as set out in the NEPA Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. This was a fire insurance case, and fire protection engineers would be allowed to testify and illuminate the circumstances of the fire. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes

    June 18, 2019 —
    In an opinion published February 25, 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Maricopa County’s surcharge on car rental agencies to fund a stadium and other sports- and tourism-related projects did not violate either the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution or the anti-diversion provision of the Arizona Constitution, art. 9, § 14. Saban Rent-a-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue. In 2000, the Arizona Legislature created the Arizona Tourism and Sports Authority (the Authority) to build and/or operate a variety of sports-related facilities, including Major League Baseball spring training facilities, and youth and amateur sports and recreation centers. Taxes and surcharges, approved by voters, are the sole funding for the Authority’s construction projects, including the challenged surcharge in Maricopa County. This surcharge is based on the income from car rental companies leasing vehicles to customers for less than one year, and is the greater of $2.50 per rental or 3.25% of the company’s gross proceeds or income. A.R.S. § 5-839. The state treasurer deposits $2.50 per rental transaction into the Maricopa County Stadium District, as it has since 1991, and the remaining amount of the difference between $2.50 per transaction and 3.25% of the company’s gross income or proceeds is distributed to the Authority. Rental car companies often pass this surcharge on to their customers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Z. Weaver, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Weaver may be contacted at aweaver@swlaw.com

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    November 12, 2019 —
    Europe’s biggest maker of cement plants is looking for help to clean up one of the world’s dirtiest industries. FLSmidth A/S, which is based in climate-friendly Denmark, wants to reduce emissions in cement production to zero by 2030. The company says it can achieve 70% of that target by leveraging existing technologies, for instance by blending clinker with alternative materials. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nick Rigillo, Bloomberg

    NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

    June 25, 2019 —
    New York state intends to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a certificate to General Electric Co. affirming the company completed its $1.7-billion cleanup of about 40 miles of the upper Hudson River, contaminated with PCBs from two former factories. State Attorney General Letitia James said April 11 that a December state study showed elevated PCB levels in river sediment and concentrations in fish, which were not recovering at the rate EPA anticipated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

    July 15, 2019 —
    The latest federal regulatory agenda has been released, which, among other matters, lists proposed and projected environmental regulatory proceedings being considered by different departments and agencies. Here are some selected items. EPA 1. The Water Office
    • EPA plans to issue in December 2019 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to consider making a regulatory determination as a prelude to listing as drinking water contaminants PFOA and PFOS pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    • EPA (along with the Corps of Engineers) plans to issue an NPRM in December 2019 that will propose to revise and update its 2008 mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, with a final rule scheduled for September 2020.
    • An NPRM to revise the 2015 effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category will be released in June 2019.
    • Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
      Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

      Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

      September 30, 2019 —
      When things go wrong on a construction project it’s often a scramble of finger pointing. In McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Case No. D074219 (June 5, 2019), the California Court of Appeals for the 4th District considered whether an additional insured exclusion, excluding “property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured,” precluded a duty to defend by an insurer. McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was the developer and general contractor on a residential project known as Auburn Lane in Chula Vista, California. McMillin subcontracted with Martin Roofing Company, Inc. to perform roofing work. Under the subcontract, Martin was required to obtain commercial general liability insurance naming McMillin as an additional insured. The commercial general liability insurance policy secured by Martin was issued by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company. As is typical, the policy covered “property damage” and “personal injury” arising out of an “occurrence” during the policy period. McMillin was covered as additional insured under ISO endorsement form CG 20 09 03 97. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
      Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

      New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

      September 23, 2019 —
      In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
      Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

      Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States

      July 22, 2019 —
      The magazine, Construction Executive, recently rated the top construction law firms in the United States. We are pleased to announce that our firm was rated as number one in Oregon and Alaska and number two in the state of Washington behind Perkins Coie, LLP. In its inaugural ranking, Construction Executive reached out to hundreds of law firms nationwide with a dedicated construction practice to determine who the industry leaders were. Ahlers Cressman & Sleight ranked 22nd overall in the United States among all construction law firms. This survey considered revenues from each of the law firm’s construction practices, the number of lawyers in the firm’s construction practice, the percentage of the firm’s total revenues derived from construction practice, the number of states in which the firm is licensed to practice and the year in which the construction practice was established. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
      Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com