BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama Medical building Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama parking structure Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama Subterranean parking Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama housing Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama high-rise construction Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama landscaping construction Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama mid-rise construction Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama multi family housing Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama tract home Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama retail construction Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama hospital construction Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama townhome construction Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama structural steel construction Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama custom homes Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama condominiums Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama institutional building Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama casino resort Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama production housing Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama custom home Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama office building Building Consultant Clayhatchee Alabama
    Clayhatchee Alabama civil engineering expert witnessClayhatchee Alabama consulting general contractorClayhatchee Alabama stucco expert witnessClayhatchee Alabama roofing and waterproofing expert witnessClayhatchee Alabama expert witnesses fenestrationClayhatchee Alabama construction claims expert witnessClayhatchee Alabama building code expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Clayhatchee, Alabama

    Alabama Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Although there is case law precedent for right to repair, Title 6 Article 13A states action must be commenced within 2 years after cause and not more than 13 years after completion of construction.


    Building Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Clayhatchee Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tallapoosa Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0186
    714 Commerce Drive
    Alexander City, AL 35010
    Clayhatchee Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Tuscaloosa
    Local # 0188
    2009 Paul W Bryant Dr
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35401

    Clayhatchee Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Chilton County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0117
    209 Parliament Parkway
    Maylene, AL 35114
    Clayhatchee Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Lee Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0136
    528 Lafayette Pl
    Auburn, AL 36830
    Clayhatchee Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Phenix City
    Local # 0172
    1808 Opelika Road
    Phenix City, AL 36867
    Clayhatchee Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Associated Home Builders of Greater Birmingham
    Local # 0116
    5000 Grantswood Road Ste 240
    Irondale, AL 35210

    Clayhatchee Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117

    Clayhatchee Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Clayhatchee Alabama


    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Communicate with the Field to Nip Issues in the Bud

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

    How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    At $350 Million, Beverly Hillbillies Mansion Is Most Expensive in U.S.

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

    Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

    BLOK, a Wired UK Hottest 100 Housing Market Startup, Gets Funding from a Renowned Group of Investors

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

    Construction Defect Coverage Summary 2013: The Business Risks Shift To Insurers

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes
    Corporate Profile

    CLAYHATCHEE ALABAMA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Clayhatchee, Alabama 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 Clayhatchee'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
    Clayhatchee, Alabama

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    November 04, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured subcontractor's economic losses did not amount to covered property damage. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949 (5th Cir. Aug 12, 2019). Capsco Industries, Inc. was a subcontractor on the construction of a casino. Capsco subcontracted with Ground Control to install water, sewage, and storm-drain lines. Ground Control was terminated from the project by the general contractor for alleged safety violations and failed drug tests of its employees. Ground Control sued in state court against multiple parties, including Capsco, seeking payment for work on the project. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment because neither party had obtained the required certificates of responsibility from the state, making the parties' contract void. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed the contract was void, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings based solely on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. While the state case was on remand, Capsco's liability insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company, filed a compliant for declaratory judgment in federal district court seeking a declaration that they did not owe a defense or indemnity to Capsco. The defendants were Ground Control, Capsco, the general contractor, and the casino owner. The latter two parties were dismissed. Ground Control counterclaimed for coverage of its claims against Capsco. The district court stayed proceedings until the state court litigation ended. 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

    Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

    September 30, 2019 —
    Congratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition Los Angeles, California William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants Michael Leahy for insurance law Denis Moriarty for insurance law Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy and Denis J. Moriarty Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    August 20, 2019 —
    The construction industry has its fair share of serious cash flow problems. The nature of the industry with long periods between billing and collection, the unpredictability of some business factors, and even the day-to-day decisions of stakeholders have a huge effect on cash reserves. So how can you protect your business from these cash flow problems? Having a greater awareness of the most common cash flow problems is the key to maintaining your financial stability. Here are some of the top cash flow issues that construction companies need to watch out for. 1. Uncontrolled business growth The growth of a business as a cash flow problem sounds unintuitive. It is supposed to be a positive thing. So how could it hurt your construction business? When it goes out of control. During the growth phase, the company will need to expand its operations to meet the increasing demand. This means renting a larger office space, hiring more staff, and buying more inventory, all of which can burn through the company’s cash quickly. The more substantial the level of your growth is, the more your cash flow is affected. Growth is a good thing, but it is important to be aware of the pitfalls that you could encounter that can lead to cash flow problems. If you are dealing with a volatile growth instead of a stable one, you have to think twice before expanding your operations. A quarter with a large number of construction project deals does not guarantee the same happening in a subsequent quarter. 2. Change of scope or scope creep The scope, or the statement of work, is the foundation that guides a construction project from start to finish. It specifies all the deliverables needed by the project as agreed by all stakeholders. When the existing requirements are altered, new features are added, or project goals are changed uncontrollably, what happens is scope creep and it can hurt a company’s cash flow. Construction projects can take a long time before they are finished. A lot of factors can result in changes in the scope. There may be changes in the market strategy, market demand, and other unpredictable variables that make changes in the project requirements a necessity. These changes build up and the project may shift away from what was intended, causing delays, loss of quality, and the rise of planned costs. One way to prevent scope creep from affecting cash flow significantly is charging a fee for variations of the scope of work. However, having a solid and clear scope baseline is still the best way to combat scope creep. Reminding clients of what you signed up for by referring to the baseline is a good strategy to deal with pushy clients. 3. Payment delays and nonpayment As previously mentioned, the construction industry tends to have a lengthy period between sending an invoice and collecting payments. And if you are too passive in your collection, clients are more likely to extend pay periods and delay paying you. Unexpected delays in payment and other payment issues can have a devastating effect on companies that have little to no cash reserves. Without a cash cushion to fall back on, payment issues can threaten the existence of the business itself. If you are unable to manage your receivables, you will not have enough cash to pay the bills, pay employees, and fund your growth. Payment delays and nonpayment can happen for several reasons. They can be simple like mistakes in the invoicing or the person needed to approve the invoice is unavailable. More serious reasons like a client unsatisfied with your service or, worse, trying to scam you are also possibilities. For these reasons, it is crucial to communicate with clients properly and see if you can agree with a payment structure or pursue legal action. The construction industry operates slightly differently from other industries. Different projects produce different cash flow issues and require different strategies. By being aware of the top cash flow problems that can hurt your construction business, you will be better equipped in dealing with them in case they happen. About the Author: Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle, where they build software that helps contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers secure their lien rights and get paid faster by automating the collection process for unpaid construction invoices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Hogan, CEO, Handle

    On to Year Thirteen for Blog

    January 13, 2020 —
    Insurance Law Hawaii hits twelve years of existence this week, 1347 posts later. We started in December 2007. We continue in order to keep up on developing issues in insurance law. We strive to keep readers abreast of new developments in cases from Hawaii and across the country. Other Damon Key blogs to check out are inversecomdemnation.com [here] authored by Robert Thomas, Mark Murakami's oceanlawhawaii.com [here] and hawaiiconstructionlaw.com [here] by Anna Oshiro. 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

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    September 03, 2019 —
    The Supreme Court will be deciding some very important regulatory law cases in the new few weeks as the term winds down. CERCLA Circled Last week, the Court granted a petition to review a significant CERCLA case, Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian, et al., decided by the Supreme Court of Montana on state law grounds. This case involves state litigation which could result in a cleanup whose scope is allegedly inconsistent with an ongoing and expensive federal CERCLA cleanup at the Anaconda Smelter site. CERCLA basically provides that no one may challenge an ongoing Superfund cleanup, yet this state common law proceeding seeking a cleanup of the plaintiff’s homes and properties arguably threatens the EPA-approved cleanup remedy. ARCO filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the Court has now granted despite the Solicitor General’s brief which argued that the Court should wait to see the results of the Montana trial. (It is unusual for the Court to reject the advice of the Solicitor General.) 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

    Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    December 09, 2019 —
    Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    November 12, 2019 —
    On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    July 30, 2019 —
    These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:
    The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.
    InDyne was subsequently awarded a contract with the Air Force and shortly thereafter sent a subcontract to Beacon and requested Beacon’s “best and final” pricing. Beacon protested by letter stating that it was only required to act consistently with its original bid pricing. Beacon then returned the subcontract with the original bid pricing and accepting all but a termination for convenience provision. Shortly thereafter, InDyne informed Beacon that InDyne had awarded the subcontract to one of Beacon’s competitors. Beacon of course sued and argued that the teaming agreement required that InDyne award the subcontract to Beacon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com