BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction Building Consultant Golovin Alaska condominium Building Consultant Golovin Alaska tract home Building Consultant Golovin Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Golovin Alaska condominiums Building Consultant Golovin Alaska housing Building Consultant Golovin Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant Golovin Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Golovin Alaska high-rise construction Building Consultant Golovin Alaska production housing Building Consultant Golovin Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Golovin Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Golovin Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Golovin Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Golovin Alaska industrial building Building Consultant Golovin Alaska custom home Building Consultant Golovin Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Golovin Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Golovin Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Golovin Alaska mid-rise construction Building Consultant Golovin Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Golovin Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Golovin Alaska
    Golovin Alaska expert witness roofingGolovin Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessGolovin Alaska stucco expert witnessGolovin Alaska expert witness windowsGolovin Alaska construction expert witnessesGolovin Alaska construction defect expert witnessGolovin Alaska contractor expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Golovin, 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 Golovin Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


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

    Golovin Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Golovin Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Golovin Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Golovin Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Golovin Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Golovin Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Golovin Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Golovin Alaska


    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    Construction Defects Up Price and Raise Conflict over Water Treatment Expansion

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Andrea DeField and Cary D. Steklof, Recognized as Legal Elite

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

    Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    Massachusetts Roofer Killed in Nine-story Fall

    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Boston Water Main Break Floods Trench and Kills Two Workers

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    A Retrospective As-Built Schedule Analysis Can Be Used to Support Delay

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Breaking News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document
    Corporate Profile

    GOLOVIN ALASKA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Golovin, Alaska Building Consultant Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 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 Golovin'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
    Golovin, Alaska

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    January 10, 2022 —
    Let a molecule of carbon dioxide escape into the atmosphere, and it stays for centuries. There’s more than enough up there to smother the planet like a too-warm quilt, trapping heat within and weirding the weather. The damage will be felt for generations. But CO2 is only part of the patchwork of warming. Methane locks in far more heat in the short term and has been leaking just as relentlessly. Methane Surge Atmospheric concentrations of methane are 2.5x higher than in pre-industrial times. The difference is that methane’s power fades faster, within just decades. If we stopped emissions today, almost all the methane in the atmospheric blanket would degrade within a lifetime. Reprinted courtesy of Hayley Warren, Bloomberg and Akshat Rathi, Bloomberg Read the full story...

    New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

    May 16, 2022 —
    NL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the full story...

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    April 11, 2022 —
    In Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:
    "Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier

    April 11, 2022 —
    In United Concrete Prods. v. NJR Constr., LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551, 263 A.3d 823 (2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court has issued a decision that should be of interest to the Connecticut construction industry and the construction bar. The lawsuit arose out of the late delivery of materials on a construction project, which is a frequent problem on construction projects. In United Concrete Products, the defendant general contractor, NJR Construction, LLC (“NJR”) was retained by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to replace a bridge over the Hockanum River (“Project”). Id. at 555-58 (2021). The Prime Contract provided that NJR with an eight-week time-frame to perform the work, at which time the road would be closed to traffic. Id. The Prime Contract also provided for a bonus of $3,000 for each day the road was opened to traffic prior to the eight week deadline of August 8, 2016, and for liquidated damages of $3,000 for each day the road remained closed beyond the deadline. Id. NJR subsequently entered into a purchase order (“Subcontract”) with the plaintiff, United Concrete Products, Inc. (“United”), whereby United agreed to provide certain concrete components for the Project, including ten pre-stressed concrete beams. Id. The Subcontract required that United deliver the concrete beams by June 7, 2016, but, NJR did not actually schedule the delivery until June 29, 2016. Id. Nevertheless, even with that schedule NJR could have reopened the road by July 19, 2016, which would have allowed it to receive the full $60,000 incentive bonus. However, United did not deliver the concrete beams until July 26, 2016, which caused NJR to lose the incentive bonus, be assessed liquidated damages by the DOT, and to incur additional delay damages. Id. After deducting the amount of $179,500 in damages that it incurred due to United’s late delivery of the beams, NJR paid United the balance of $66,074.75. Id. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Barrack, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
    Mr. Barrack may be contacted at rbarrack@grsm.com

    Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion

    February 14, 2022 —
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the full story...

    Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade

    January 03, 2022 —
    Based on further structural analysis and the success of a pilot program that installed three permanent piles using modified procedures, the structural engineer-of-record for the delayed perimeter pile upgrade of the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco has proposed a significantly reduced scope for the project that he says would still arrest settlement and allow the slow recovery of some of the condominium building’s tilt. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story...

    Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    April 19, 2022 —
    Subrogation professionals have always been looking for ways to defeat onerous waiver of subrogation provisions in contracts signed by insureds. However, even when contracts are unsigned, if there is intent when the contract is made – usually long before a loss occurs – a waiver of subrogation can doom what otherwise may have been a strong case. The Superior Court of Delaware considered such a scenario to determine whether a waiver of subrogation provision applied to a multimillion-dollar subrogation case. In State of Delaware Insurance Coverage Office and Factory Mutual Insurance Co., both as subrogee of the University of Delaware v. DiSabatino Construction Co., Schlosser & Associates Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and V.E. Guerrazzi, Inc., C.A. No. N19C-08-080, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 108 (March 17, 2022), the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a waiver of subrogation provision in the underlying contract. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue the defendants in their suit to recover damages as a result of a fire. The court specifically denied the plaintiffs’ argument that since the contract was not signed and another “short form” version was later used the waiver of subrogation provision should not apply. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    February 28, 2022 —
    For decades, an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law was determined exclusively by reviewing the insurance contract and the allegations of the complaint under the “eight-corners rule.” All of this changed last week when, in a long-awaited decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the existence of coverage in certain limited situations. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 21-0232, 2022 WL 413940 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). In Monroe, a drilling contractor was sued for damages arising out of the allegedly botched drilling of an irrigation well. The underlying lawsuit alleged that negligent drilling caused damage to surrounding farmland. However, the complaint did not allege when the damage occurred. The contractor’s insurers, BITCO General Insurance Corporation (“Bitco”) and Monroe Guarantee Insurance Company (“Monroe”) disputed whether Monroe owed a duty to defend. Although Bitco agreed to provide a defense, Monroe refused, arguing that the property damage happened before its policy period. Bitco sued Monroe for contribution. In the trial court, the insurers stipulated that a drill bit became stuck before Monroe’s policy incepted, a fact that would have supported Monroe’s “prior damage” defense. On summary judgment, though, the trial court ruled this stipulated fact could not be considered under Texas’ eight-corners rule. Monroe appealed, and the Fifth Circuit, which had previously endorsed an exception to the eight-corners rule under Northfield Insurance Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 2004), certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears, Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the full story...