BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska housing Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska retail construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska production housing Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska mid-rise construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska industrial building Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska tract home Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska custom home Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska condominiums Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska
    Fort Yukon Alaska construction claims expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction defect expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska consulting architect expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska building consultant expertFort Yukon Alaska architecture expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Fort Yukon, 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 Fort Yukon 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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Fort Yukon Alaska


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

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    2019 California Construction Law Update

    Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    My Construction Law Wish List

    Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Following Mishaps, D.C. Metro Presses on With Repairs

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Construction Project Bankruptcy Law

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Contractor Sues Supplier over Defective Products

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Slower Pace in May

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Design Professional Liens: A Blueprint

    Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable

    The Law Clinic Paves Way to the Digitalization of Built Environment Processes

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases
    Corporate Profile

    FORT YUKON ALASKA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Fort Yukon, Alaska Building Consultant Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of 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.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Fort Yukon, Alaska

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    April 22, 2019 —
    In United Services Automobile Association v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, No. 218 2017 CV 01113, [1] the Superior Court of Rockingham County, New Hampshire recently considered whether the eight-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applied to the manufacturer of a ceiling ventilation fan that was installed in the property during its original construction. The court held that New Hampshire’s statute of repose did not apply to the manufacturer because it was not involved in incorporating its product into the property. In 2012, Chad St. Francis purchased a home in Northwood, New Hampshire. The home was originally constructed in 2008, at which time a Broan-Nutone ceiling ventilation fan was installed in the first-floor bathroom. In 2016, a fire occurred at the home. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) provided property casualty insurance for the home and paid Mr. St. Francis for the damage. In 2017, USAA filed a subrogation lawsuit against Broan-Nutone, alleging that its ceiling fan caused the fire due to a design defect within the product. Broan-Nutone filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that USAA’s action was barred by New Hampshire’s statute of repose for improvements to real property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    January 28, 2019 —
    An expert’s qualifications are important. Please remember this the next time you retain an expert to analyze documents or data and render an opinion based on that information. An expert must be qualified to render an opinion. Otherwise the expert will not be allowed to render the opinion you may be looking for or need for purposes of trial, as discussed below. A recent personal injury case, White v. Ring Power Corp., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2729a (Fla. 3d 2018), involved a crane operator that became severely injured when operating a leased crane. The case proceeded to trial against only the equipment lessor of the crane based on the plaintiff’s contention that there were deficiencies with the crane. The plaintiff intended on using expert witnesses to interpret the crane’s load movement indicator (referred to as LMI) and render opinions that the LMI data showed prior overloads of the crane which resulted in the injury to the operator of the crane. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    January 08, 2019 —
    Workplace injuries are an increasingly expensive cost of doing business. While every business does their best to avoid these injuries, even the most prepared employers must deal with them on occasion. The costs associated with these injuries—increased worker’s compensation premiums, decreased productivity, hiring temporary employees, and the loss of experienced workers—can be mitigated by shrewd employers taking full advantage of available assistance programs. 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

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    March 18, 2019 —
    In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    December 11, 2018 —
    Utilizing an owner-controlled or contractor-controlled insurance program (collectively known as “wrap-ups”) can reduce claims, save costs, and give owners and general contractors comfort in knowing their project is adequately insured. However, problems often arise when a subcontractor doesn’t enroll in the wrap-up and, instead, agrees to provide additional insured coverage to the owner and general contractor on the subcontractor’s own general liability policy. One of those problems is the prevalence of wrap-up exclusions on subcontractors’ general liability policies. If the wrap-up exclusion is too broadly drafted, the exclusion can eliminate coverage for the general contractor and owner even when the subcontractor is not enrolled in the wrap-up. Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha M. Oliveira, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com Mr. Oliveira may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Insurance Head Interviewed Concerning the Benefits and Hidden Dangers of Cyber Insurance

    December 04, 2018 —
    The head of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s insurance practice, Walter Andrews, was interviewed earlier this week by ABC 7 (WJLA) concerning the need for cyber insurance and the benefits that it can provide to government contractors and other businesses that are impacted by a cyber event. Andrews explains the diverse spectrum of benefits that are available through cyber insurance products, but cautions that a serious lack of uniformity exists among today’s cyber insurance products, making it crucial that policyholders carefully analyze their cyber insurance to ensure it provides the scope and amount of insurance they desire. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

    January 21, 2019 —
    Over the summer, I was involved in a car crash. It was *not* my fault– heck, I wasn’t even driving but riding shotgun. But it wasn’t my husband’s fault either. A guy pulling out of a parking lot was watching the traffic coming up the road, but failed to see our car sitting in the same intersection waiting to turn into the same parking lot. He ran right into us. It may not look like much, but the panels were so damaged it cost almost $9k in damages, over a month of car rental fees, and a LOT of aggravation on our part. The guy who hit us was very nice, apologized, and was concerned if we were injured. His insurance company ultimately paid for all of the damage. However– it wasn’t he who suddenly got a new part time job– that was me. I had to spend lots of time with police, insurance representatives, auto body mechanics, rental car places, you name it. If you’ve ever been in an accident, you know the headache involved. In fact, I have had 2 other accidents over the years (again, neither of which were my fault– I think I’m just a beacon for bad drivers?). One of those accidents was a 4 car accident– a driver hit my car, pushing it into the car ahead, which went into the car ahead of that. In that accident, my car was actually totaled. Fun times! How is this relevant to your life as an architect or engineer? If you stay in the game (that is, the design field) long enough, chances are, you will, at some point, end up dealing with disgruntled clients. One of those clients may even file a lawsuit against you. Or, for that matter, you may end up getting sued by another party involved in your construction projects– one that you don’t even have a contract with. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

    May 13, 2019 —
    Many markets which provide insurance for construction projects include an endorsement providing coverage for “repair work” as part of their standard policy. “Repair work” endorsements are largely misunderstood by policyholders and the insurance broker community. They are typically assumed to be coverage enhancements, but many provide no additional coverage and actually risk reduction of coverage otherwise provided as part of the products-completed operations (“PCO”) extensions also found in these project-specific policies. This article is designed to help the reader understand these endorsements so that better decisions can be made at the point of purchase. Intent The common feature of these endorsements is a grant of coverage for bodily injury and property damage resulting from “repair work” for a specified period of time. Most endorsements define “repair work” to mean the repair of completed work performed pursuant to a contract or warranty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com