BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska Medical building Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska parking structure Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska condominium Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska custom home Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska custom homes Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska institutional building Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska casino resort Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska retail construction Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska housing Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska office building Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska industrial building Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska condominiums Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska high-rise construction Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska tract home Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska production housing Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska mid-rise construction Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant White Mountain Alaska
    White Mountain Alaska delay claim expert witnessWhite Mountain Alaska civil engineer expert witnessWhite Mountain Alaska eifs expert witnessWhite Mountain Alaska soil failure expert witnessWhite Mountain Alaska fenestration expert witnessWhite Mountain Alaska building code compliance expert witnessWhite Mountain Alaska construction defect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    White Mountain, 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 White Mountain 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

    White Mountain Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    White Mountain Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    White Mountain Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    White Mountain Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    White Mountain Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    White Mountain Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    White Mountain Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For White Mountain Alaska


    Cincinnati Goes Green

    ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Investigators Explain Focus on Pre-Collapse Cracking in Florida Bridge

    90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

    Latosha Ellis Selected for 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder Program

    Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    New Utah & Colorado Homebuilder Announced: Jack Fisher Homes

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds

    Digital Twins – Interview with Cristina Savian

    From Both Sides Now: Looking at Contracts Through a Post-Pandemic Lens

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Court Holds That Public Entity Can Unilaterally Replace Subcontractor Under California’s Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

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

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    ‘I’m a Scapegoat,’ Says Former CEO of Dubai Construction Firm

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions
    Corporate Profile

    WHITE MOUNTAIN ALASKA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The White Mountain, 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to White Mountain'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
    White Mountain, Alaska

    Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

    May 24, 2021 —
    The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). 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

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    May 17, 2021 —
    The New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):
    1. Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
    2. Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
    3. Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
    Reprinted courtesy of Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman, Adam Krauss, Traub Lieberman, Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman, Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com Mr. Krauss may be contacted at akrauss@tlsslaw.com Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Mr Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

    April 26, 2021 —
    The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches

    October 18, 2021 —
    Investigations and forensic reports relating to a cybersecurity breach may not always be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Companies seeking such reports after a data breach must take caution to protect them from a possible waiver of privilege in the event of subsequent litigation relating to a data breach. The following recent cases highlight the potential waiver of privilege in light of the preparation of a forensic report.
    1. In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 3470261 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020)
    • After a data breach occurred, Capital One retained a law firm that later entered into an agreement with Mandiant for various cyber-related services (including incident remediation), which required that Mandiant provide deliverables to the firm, rather than to Capitol One. In re Capital One Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2020 WL 2731238, at *1 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2020). Plaintiffs sought release of the report created by Mandiant (regarding the factors leading to the breach), arguing that it was prepared for business and regulatory purposes and therefore was not privileged, while Capital One argued that the report was privileged because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Ibid. The Court determined that Capital One did not carry its burden of establishing that the report was protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and ordered that Capital One produce the report. Id. at *7. In its reasoning, the Court stated that the fact that there is litigation does not, by itself, provide prepared materials with work-product protection. Ibid. The work-product protection applies when a party faces a claim following an event that may result in litigation, and the work product would not have been prepared in a substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation. Ibid.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shaia Araghi, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Araghi may be contacted at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    September 20, 2021 —
    Pennsylvania construction contractor Glenn O. Hawbaker Inc. has pleaded no contest to counts of theft of worker pay—in alleged violation of state prevailing-wage laws—and will pay 1,267 workers restitution of $20.7 million in unpaid wages, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said. The company entered its plea to four felony counts of “theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received” on Aug. 3 before President Judge Pamela A. Ruest of the Centre County Court of Common Pleas in Bellefonte, Pa. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    August 16, 2021 —
    August 10, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the U.S. Senate for passing the historic, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.2 trillion deal will lay the foundation for extensive improvements in the nation’s roadways, bridges, railways, waterways and broadband access. “Investing in infrastructure will create millions of jobs across the country, growing our national and local economies in both the short and long term,” said SFAA president and CEO, Lee Covington. “The surety industry fully supports this investment and will continue to provide the essential protections necessary to support our country’s infrastructure needs through our suite of products and services.” SFAA also commends the inclusion of the Van Hollen 2354 amendment to the bill, accepted by a unanimous vote of 97-0. The amendment requires payment and performance bonds on all federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving loans and grants under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), protecting taxpayers’ dollars, ensuring project completion, protecting local small business contractors and workers, and promoting economic growth. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. https://www.surety.org/ Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Team Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Celebrity Comedian Kathy Griffin in Dispute with Bel Air Neighbor

    August 04, 2021 —
    San Diego Appellate Partner Jeffry A. Miller, Indian Wells Appellate Partner Wendy S. Dowse, and Los Angeles Partners Dana Alden Fox and Michael Moss recently prevailed in an appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted Lewis Brisbois clients Kathy Griffin and Randy Bick, Jr.’s motion for summary adjudication of the plaintiffs’ causes of action for invasion of privacy and violation of California Penal Code section 632, which prohibits recording confidential communications. As reported by Law360 in an article titled "Kathy Griffin Beats Calif. Neighbors' Backyard Spying Suit," and in a Bloomberg Law article titled "Comedian Kathy Griffin Beats Neighbor’s Invasion of Privacy Suit," the plaintiffs initially filed suit against Griffin and Bick, Jr. in 2018, alleging that their home security cameras recorded “every move and every communication” in the plaintiffs’ private backyard. They argued that the defendants' use of the security system invaded their privacy and violated California law. Prior to the lawsuit, Griffin and Bick, Jr. had made noise complaints about the plaintiffs to their homeowners' association and to the Los Angeles Police Department. The plaintiffs learned of the defendants' security cameras after a profane rant directed at the defendants and related to their noise complaint was recorded and reported in the media. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois, Wendy Dowse, Lewis Brisbois, Dana Fox, Lewis Brisbois and Michael Moss, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Dowse may be contacted at Wendy.Dowse@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Fox may be contacted at Dana.Fox@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Moss may be contacted at Michael.Moss@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power

    May 17, 2021 —
    Google’s moving forward with its goal of becoming carbon-free by the end of the decade after AES Corp. agreed to supply the tech giant with renewable energy to power its data centers in Virginia. AES, an international electricity company and power-plant developer, said the deal will result in the construction of 500 megawatts of solar, wind, small-scale hydroelectric and battery storage projects and supply will begin later this year, according to a statement Tuesday. AES and third-party developers will own the facilities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg