BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska office building Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska condominiums Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska housing Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska high-rise construction Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska condominium Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska retail construction Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska industrial building Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska production housing Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska tract home Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Seldovia Alaska
    Seldovia Alaska architecture expert witnessSeldovia Alaska construction defect expert witnessSeldovia Alaska OSHA expert witness constructionSeldovia Alaska construction expert witness consultantSeldovia Alaska construction expert witnessesSeldovia Alaska construction safety expertSeldovia Alaska eifs expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Seldovia, 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 Seldovia Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required


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

    Seldovia Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Seldovia Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Seldovia Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Seldovia Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Seldovia Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Seldovia Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Seldovia Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Seldovia Alaska


    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Pass-Through Subcontractor Claims, Liquidating Agreements, and Avoiding a Two-Front War

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

    Useful Life: A Valuable Theory for Reducing Damages

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Bar to Raise on Green Standard

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

    Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

    David M. McLain, Esq. to Speak at the 2014 CLM Claims College

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

    What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction
    Corporate Profile

    SELDOVIA ALASKA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seldovia, 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 Seldovia'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
    Seldovia, Alaska

    Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

    August 10, 2021 —
    Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

    May 31, 2021 —
    As most contractors know, scope, price and time are the “big” three in any construction contract. Nearly as important, however, are the insurance provisions. Patricularly, when things go bad on a construction project. As the next case, Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company 61 Cal.App.5th 97 (2021) discusses, the difference between “claims-made” versus “occurrence-based” coverage can be extremely important. The Guastello Case In 2003 and 2004, subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. built retaining walls in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California. Poss performed all related excavation, ground and grading work. In 2006, Thomas Guastello purchased a home in the development, and in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his lot suffered a massive failure that causing over $700,000 in damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Evaluating Smart Home Technology: It’s About More Than the Bottom Line

    May 03, 2021 —
    Outfitting a commercial real estate space with smart technology can be a significant cost. While the long-term benefits and strategic improvements we’ve discussed previously can make that investment worthwhile, the evaluation period is critical to ensure an impactful ROI. Property developers, owners, and managers should undertake a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the technology procurement aligns with the project’s overall financial plan. And this is not just about getting the cost right. If the technology does not meet the needs of the space, then all the smart technology in the world will not prevent the project from being a sunk cost. Do the Research so You Know … The Technology. While the RFP is a key step of the procurement process, a more informal research phase should be undertaken first. Smart technology is a rapidly evolving field, and before reaching out to vendors, the business should ensure that it understands what is available—both in terms of the kinds of technology that can be implemented, and the various companies that offer solutions. Gathering this information early will yield results that align more closely with a particular building’s needs. Reprinted courtesy of James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and Rachel Newell, Pillsbury Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Newell may be contacted at rachel.newell@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

    June 14, 2021 —
    Congratulations to partner Kristian Moriarty who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mortgagors Seek Coverage Under Mortgagee's Policy

    July 19, 2021 —
    The mortgagor homeowners survived a motion to dismiss their claim for coverageunder the lender's property policy after their home suffered hurricane damage. Gary v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100010 (W.D. La. May 26, 2021). Plaintiffs' home was mortgaged by Pennymac Loan Services, LLC. Pennymac held a property policy with American Security to insure its interest in the home. Plaintiffs were not named as insureds or additional insureds under the policy. Plaintiffs were identified as the borrowers under the policy on the Declarations page. After hurricane damage to their home, plaintiffs sued American Security for coverage for the losses. American Security moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs were neither additional insureds nor third party beneficiaries. Lender-placed policies were designed to insure the lender's collateral whenever the borrower failed to maintain adequate insurance. The Loss Payment provisions in the policy stated that "Loss will be made payable to the named insured [Pennymac]. No coverage will be available to any mortgagee other than that shown as the named insured on the Declarations." 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

    Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium

    August 04, 2021 —
    In a closely watched 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against the challengers to the eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), keeping a stay in place that leaves the eviction ban in effect through July 31. The CDC has indicated it will not renew the eviction moratorium when it expires at the end of the month. The CDC’s eviction moratorium was first adopted at the expiration of the CARES Act’s limited eviction protection for federally funded rental properties. The more broadly applicable order, extended under both the Trump and Biden administrations, prohibited landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the tenant confirmed in writing that they had done their best to make any partial payment, were at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into unsafe group housing, and earn below a set income limit. The CDC extended the order most recently on June 24. In announcing that one-month extension, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky indicated that it would be the order’s final extension. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Judge Sentences Roofing Contractor Owner in Florida PPP Fraud Case

    July 25, 2021 —
    A federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., sentenced Casey David Crowther, 35, the owner of a successful Florida roofing contracting company, to 37 months in prison for using fictitious employee lists to obtain a $2.7-million federal pandemic-aid loan and then purchasing a $689,000 boat with the funds. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    May 24, 2021 —
    On Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions. First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of