BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction Building Consultant Jakin Georgia multi family housing Building Consultant Jakin Georgia landscaping construction Building Consultant Jakin Georgia condominiums Building Consultant Jakin Georgia low-income housing Building Consultant Jakin Georgia townhome construction Building Consultant Jakin Georgia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Jakin Georgia industrial building Building Consultant Jakin Georgia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Jakin Georgia casino resort Building Consultant Jakin Georgia tract home Building Consultant Jakin Georgia Medical building Building Consultant Jakin Georgia office building Building Consultant Jakin Georgia custom homes Building Consultant Jakin Georgia custom home Building Consultant Jakin Georgia housing Building Consultant Jakin Georgia high-rise construction Building Consultant Jakin Georgia hospital construction Building Consultant Jakin Georgia institutional building Building Consultant Jakin Georgia structural steel construction Building Consultant Jakin Georgia production housing Building Consultant Jakin Georgia parking structure Building Consultant Jakin Georgia
    Jakin Georgia OSHA expert witness constructionJakin Georgia construction safety expertJakin Georgia engineering expert witnessJakin Georgia eifs expert witnessJakin Georgia civil engineer expert witnessJakin Georgia roofing construction expertJakin Georgia architecture expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Jakin, Georgia

    Georgia Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 563 stipulates that prior to filing a claim, a homeowner must give the contractor 30 day written notice detailing the nature of the defect. In response, contractor must provide (within 30 days of receipt) a written reply containing an offer of settlement, requirement of inspection or rejection. The law provides definitions relating to construction; offers immunity from liability for certain conditions; and sets up an alternative dispute resolution process.


    Building Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Jakin Georgia

    No state license for general contracting required. License is required for Air Conditioning, Electrical, and Plumbing trades.


    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Golden Isles Home Builders Association
    Local # 1135
    218 Rose Drive
    Brunswick, GA 31520
    Jakin Georgia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of South GA
    Local # 1194
    PO Box 2950
    Valdosta, GA 31603

    Jakin Georgia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Albany & SW GA Inc
    Local # 1108
    PO Box 70424
    Albany, GA 31708

    Jakin Georgia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Savannah
    Local # 1188
    7116 Hodgson Memorial Dr
    Savannah, GA 31406

    Jakin Georgia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Statesboro Home Builders Association
    Local # 1191
    1223 Merchants Way
    Statesboro, GA 30458
    Jakin Georgia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Greater Columbus Home Builders Association
    Local # 1148
    6432 Bradley Park Dr
    Columbus, GA 31904

    Jakin Georgia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association Of Warner Robins
    Local # 1196
    PO Box 8297
    Warner Robins, GA 31095

    Jakin Georgia Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Jakin Georgia


    What You Don’t Know About Construction Law Can Hurt Your Engineering Firm (Law Note)

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

    Digitalizing Cross-Laminated Timber Construction

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Lis Pendens – Recordation and Dissolution

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

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

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Los Angeles Considering Census of Seismically Unstable Buildings

    Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice

    Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    The Condo Conundrum: 10 Reasons Why There's a 'For Sale' Shortage in Seattle

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    CA Homeowners Challenging Alternate Pre-Litigation Procedures

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    When it Comes to Trials, it’s Like a Box of Chocolates. Sometimes You Get the Icky Cream Filled One

    CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims
    Corporate Profile

    JAKIN GEORGIA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Jakin, Georgia 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Jakin'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
    Jakin, Georgia

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    August 13, 2019 —
    Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    August 26, 2019 —
    In Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action. “The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    December 09, 2019 —
    The insurer denied the insured contractor's claim seeking a defense for faulty workmanship based upon the ongoing operations exclusion. PJR Constr. of N.J. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D. N. J. July 31, 2019). PJR Construction was the general contractor to build a swim club and pavilion building for Cambridge Real Property, LLC. PJR began construction on May 29, 2012, and was to complete the construction by March 1, 2013. The project took much longer than anticipated. PJR was denied access to the site on November 13, 2014. Cambridge contended PJR tolerated shoddy workmanship and breached the terms of the contract documents. Cambridge estimated that the project was between 55% and 74.3% complete. PJR and Cambridge went to arbitration. PJR sought a defense from the insurers. Coverage was denied based upon exclusions j (5) and j (6). Exclusion j (5), which the court referred to as the "Ongoing Operations Exclusion," provided the policy did not apply to,
    Property Damage to . . . [t]hat particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the property damage arises out of those operations.
    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

    Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

    August 13, 2019 —
    The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California Private Works project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. The process starts with the recording of a mechanics lien in the office of the County Recorder where the property in question is located. As noted below, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that, the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). A further general description of the rules is as follows: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    July 30, 2019 —
    Contractor Tutor Perini Corp. is clashing with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency over what the firm says are alleged design flaws that may push past December the completion of the already-delayed $1.6-billion Central Subway Project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Erica Berardi, ENR
    Ms. Berardi may be contacted at BerardiE@enr.com

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    December 02, 2019 —
    In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    August 20, 2019 —
    Lump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract. This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions. In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    August 06, 2019 —
    It doesn’t take much to be catastrophically wrong in construction; some bad information, a touch of misleading intel, a few biased opinions mixed with human error and perhaps a little bad luck to top it off. A poor decision early in a project plants itself like a weed—it grows benignly at first, and becomes gravely pervasive at the end. Being wrong in construction is dangerous. Error leads to leaning towers and broken buildings. Poorly-built structures can hinder economic growth and deprive communities of good infrastructure. For the enterprise, bad decisions can lead to massive financial loss and—worse—human loss on a jobsite. Despite knowing all the dangers, it seems that flawed data, misleading intel and human error have become traits the industry can’t shake. To be clear, construction is one of—if not the most—complex industry in today’s economy. Companies walk a tight rope between a 2% margin on one side and ruinous loss on the other. Under such conditions, it’s easy to see why sustained good judgement is difficult. Reprinted courtesy of Bassem Hamdy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of