BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Brevig Mission Alaska retail construction building expert Brevig Mission Alaska low-income housing building expert Brevig Mission Alaska structural steel construction building expert Brevig Mission Alaska casino resort building expert Brevig Mission Alaska housing building expert Brevig Mission Alaska custom home building expert Brevig Mission Alaska tract home building expert Brevig Mission Alaska condominiums building expert Brevig Mission Alaska landscaping construction building expert Brevig Mission Alaska Subterranean parking building expert Brevig Mission Alaska parking structure building expert Brevig Mission Alaska mid-rise construction building expert Brevig Mission Alaska multi family housing building expert Brevig Mission Alaska concrete tilt-up building expert Brevig Mission Alaska townhome construction building expert Brevig Mission Alaska high-rise construction building expert Brevig Mission Alaska production housing building expert Brevig Mission Alaska office building building expert Brevig Mission Alaska custom homes building expert Brevig Mission Alaska hospital construction building expert Brevig Mission Alaska institutional building building expert Brevig Mission Alaska
    Brevig Mission Alaska construction scheduling expert witnessBrevig Mission Alaska slope failure expert witnessBrevig Mission Alaska window expert witnessBrevig Mission Alaska concrete expert witnessBrevig Mission Alaska OSHA expert witness constructionBrevig Mission Alaska expert witness commercial buildingsBrevig Mission Alaska construction forensic expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Brevig Mission, 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 Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Brevig Mission Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


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

    Brevig Mission Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Brevig Mission Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Brevig Mission Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Brevig Mission Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Brevig Mission Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Brevig Mission Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Brevig Mission Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Brevig Mission Alaska


    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead

    Colorado Legislature Kills SB 20-138 – A Bill to Extend Colorado’s Statute of Repose

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    Jury Finds Broker Liable for Policyholder’s Insufficient Business Interruption Limits

    Condos Down in Denver Due to Construction Defect Litigation

    Housing Starts in U.S. Beat 1 Million Pace for Second Month

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

    Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

    David McLain Recognized Among the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for Construction Law

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    Appraisers May Determine Causation

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    Civility Is Key in Construction Defect Mediation

    Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion
    Corporate Profile

    BREVIG MISSION ALASKA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Brevig Mission, Alaska Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Brevig Mission's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Brevig Mission, Alaska

    More thoughts on Virginia Mechanic’s Liens

    January 28, 2019 —
    As we settled yet another construction case on the courthouse steps today, I began to think about what I should post to begin 2009. Of course, given the construction industry slowdown that is predicted, and the trend at construction projects around the Commonwealth of Virginia that looks to me as if payments will be harder to come by from Owners less willing, for financial reasons, to work with contractors, mechanic’s liens will be more useful, and necessary, now than ever. Virginia mechanic’s liens are unusually strong because your memorandum of lien takes priority over all prior liens on the property that you have improved (including from the bank that is financing the project) except in very limited circumstances. What this means is that, should you properly file and sue to enforce your lien, you get to foreclose and have first crack at any money. By contrast, a judgment lien takes priority only over liens filed after the lien is recorded. 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

    Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums

    June 30, 2014 —
    While Garret Murai on his California Construction Law blog admits that the construction of Brazil’s World Cup stadiums has been problematic (construction worker deaths, delays, and cost overruns), he focused on the design work: “…there’s no denying that the venues are stunning, and for a country known for its beauty as well as beauties (think the Girl From Ipanema), dare I say even sexy.” For instance, Murai described the Estadio do Maracana (constructed in 1950 and renovated in 2013) as looking “a bit like the front of the USS Enterprise.” He goes onto explain how the stadium was originally constructed for the 1950 World Cup, and “famous” attendees include Frank Sinatra and the Pope. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    January 28, 2015 —
    In McMillin Companies v. American Safety Indemnity (No. D063586, filed 1/20/15), a California appeals court ruled that an insurer's loss of a summary judgment motion on the duty to defend does not necessarily establish that a duty to defend existed. McMillin was the general contractor for a series of residential construction projects, sued in a construction defect action brought by 117 homeowners. McMillin tendered its defense to its subcontractors' insurers, including American Safety (ASIC), claiming status as an additional insured (AI). ASIC denied the tender. McMillin sued ASIC and other insurers alleging breach of contract and bad faith for the failure to defend McMillin as an additional insured. Eventually, all of the other insurers settled, leaving ASIC as the sole defendant. ASIC moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion, ruling that ASIC had failed to carry its burden of disproving coverage under a blanket additional insured endorsement in the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

    September 24, 2014 —
    SI Live reported that the opening of the new state Supreme Court building in St. George, New York is delayed again due to problems with the air-conditioning and elevator systems. Delay, however, is not new to this project, which was originally expected to be completed over a decade ago. Initial delay was introduced “with the finding of remains from a 19th-century burial ground at the site, a former municipal parking lot, and more recently, with construction set-backs and other tie-ups,” according to SI Live. When completed, the new “building will boast 14 courtrooms, jury assembly, hearing and deliberation rooms, judges' chambers and court offices. There will also be holding cells for prisoners.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    January 07, 2015 —
    The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals predicted that the Wisconsin appellate courts would apply the continuous injury trigger to find coverage after the policy expired for damage caused by water infiltration. Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App LEXIS 21794 (7th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014). The insureds built their home in 1994. They purchased coverage for their home from Chubb. Coverage was in place from October 1994 through October 2005. The policy stated that coverage was limited "only to occurrences that take place while this policy is in effect." "Occurrence" was defined as "a loss or accident to which this insurance applies occurring within the policy period. Continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions unless excluded is considered to be one occurrence." In October 2010, the insureds discovered that water infiltration had been causing damage within the building envelope of the home. The infiltration was ongoing, beginning around the time of original construction and continuously occurring with each subsequent rainfall. Chubb denied coverage because the damage was not discovered during any of their policy periods. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    August 03, 2020 —
    On June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020). In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4. The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5. In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id. The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10. Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id. Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    August 27, 2014 —
    According to Meredith Eilers of Bernstein Shur, writing in JDSupra Business Advisor, a Boston Appeals court “enforced an 'as is' provision in a purchase and sale agreement and concluded that the sale of a multimillion dollar oceanfront property in Bar Harbor was not accompanied by Maine’s implied warranty of habitability.” Eilers explained that “the first circuit concluded that the bargained-for ‘as is’ provision that was incorporated into the purchase and sale agreement—in exchange for a reduction in the purchase price—essentially waived any claims from the buyer regarding misrepresentations by the sellers.” This left “the buyer to incur the repair costs without the ability to recover those costs from the seller” and it demonstrated “that agreeing to such a clause when closing a real estate deal has real risks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

    February 25, 2014 —
    In his California Construction Law blog, Garret Murai published the recent Industry Bulletin released by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) regarding the delayed implementation of the California Building Energy Standards. CSLB has delayed implementation from January 1st, 2014 to July 1, 2014 due to “unanticipated delays in developing complete performance compliance software for 2013 Public Domain Residential and Nonresidential California Building Energy Code Compliance guidelines, necessitating the CEC action to change the effective date of energy related provisions.” The Industry Bulletin summarized changes regarding various codes including 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6; 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1; and, 2013 CALGreen, Part 11. According to the bulletin, as reported by the California Construction Law blog, “Contractors are encouraged to contact their local building enforcement agencies for assistance and/or clarification.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of