BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska custom home Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska office building Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska tract home Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska industrial building Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska production housing Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska retail construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska mid-rise construction Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska condominium Building Consultant Fort Yukon Alaska
    Fort Yukon Alaska engineering consultantFort Yukon Alaska concrete expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska expert witness roofingFort Yukon Alaska construction expert witness consultantFort Yukon Alaska expert witness windowsFort Yukon Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska contractor 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


    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

    BHA Has a Nice Swing

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

    Aging-in-Place Features Becoming Essential for Many Home Buyers

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    TOLLING AGREEMENTS: Construction Defect Lawyers use them to preserve Association Warranty Claims during Construction Defect Negotiations with Developers

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

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

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums
    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

    California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

    June 18, 2019 —
    In Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 299, the Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, addressed whether a commercial condominium association’s carrier could subrogate against the tenants (aka lessees) of one of its member unit owners. After examining the condominium association’s declarations, as well as the lease terms between the owner and the lessees, the court held that the association’s carrier could not subrogate against the lessees because they were implied co-insureds on the policy. To reach its decision, the court explained that an insurer steps into the shoes of its insured, not the party with whom it is in privity. Although the first-party property portion of the association’s insurance policy did not, as required by the association’s declarations, have the owner listed as an additional named insured, the court held that it would be inequitable to treat the association as the sole insured for purposes of determining Western Heritage’s right to bring a subrogation action. In Western Heritage, William R. de Carion d/b/a Surfwood Properties (de Carion or Lessor), owned a commercial unit within a multi-unit commercial building. The building was managed by the East Shore Commercial Condominiums Owners’ Association (the Association). As a unit owner, de Carion was a member of the Association. The Association’s Declarations of Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required the Association to procure fire insurance for the commercial units by adding the unit owners as additional named insureds. The CC&Rs also prohibited owners and their “tenants” from procuring their own fire insurance policies for the premises. In 2013, de Carion leased his commercial space to Frances Todd, Inc. d/b/a The Wooden Duck, Eric Todd Gellerman and Amy Frances Feber (Lessees). Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    November 12, 2019 —
    The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    September 30, 2019 —
    Advocates of the Keystone XL oil pipeline have won a victory in their long effort to construct the project, as the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a state commission's 2017 finding that supported the project's latest route alignment through the state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    July 09, 2019 —
    Federal Courts of Appeal Dam Claims Collapse On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided the case of Navelski, et al. v. International Paper Company. After a major storm, a dam constructed by International Paper to serve the operations of its local paper mill, was breached, releasing millions of gallons of water into a nearby creek resulting in the flooding of many homes located downstream from the creek. IP was sued by the homeowners in a class action, alleging negligence and strict liability for conducting an abnormally dangerous activity. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim, and the jury found IP was not negligent in the operation of the dam. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict, agreeing that the verdict was supported by the evidence heard by the jury. The appeals court also agreed that the strict liability claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law because the operation of this dam was not an abnormally dangerous activity under Florida law. The plaintiffs had also argued that the jury should not have been advised that the home county, Escambia County, has applied for a FEMA grant which apparently made the case that some of the downstream homes were naturally prone to flooding. A redacted version of the application was allowed to be shown to the jury, but the appeals court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the court ruling was prejudicial. 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

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

    October 21, 2019 —
    This summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring. My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door. No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned. 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

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    September 03, 2019 —
    Problematic utility locations and difficult ground conditions required the project team to develop innovative solutions on the University of Texas at San Antonio’s $95-million Science and Engineering Building. Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    November 12, 2019 —
    Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019). Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary "shoring " was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place. Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a "collapse of a building." Collapse was defined by the policy as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building," such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during construction. 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

    In Pricey California, Renters Near Respite From Landlord Gouging

    September 16, 2019 —
    The housing crisis engulfing California has state lawmakers racing to pass bills that would boost construction and stop corporate landlords from egregiously jacking up rents. The bills overcame key hurdles last week and are due for final votes before the legislature adjourns on Sept. 13. The hardest-fought measure would set a higher standard for evictions and cap annual rent increases at 5% plus the rate of inflation. While that’s below the typical pace of lease hikes -- and the bill has many caveats for landlords -- it would still mark the state’s most significant new protection for tenants in decades. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg