BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Anvik Alaska casino resort building expert Anvik Alaska tract home building expert Anvik Alaska parking structure building expert Anvik Alaska retail construction building expert Anvik Alaska condominiums building expert Anvik Alaska low-income housing building expert Anvik Alaska landscaping construction building expert Anvik Alaska Subterranean parking building expert Anvik Alaska housing building expert Anvik Alaska structural steel construction building expert Anvik Alaska production housing building expert Anvik Alaska mid-rise construction building expert Anvik Alaska condominium building expert Anvik Alaska high-rise construction building expert Anvik Alaska concrete tilt-up building expert Anvik Alaska office building building expert Anvik Alaska custom homes building expert Anvik Alaska townhome construction building expert Anvik Alaska multi family housing building expert Anvik Alaska Medical building building expert Anvik Alaska industrial building building expert Anvik Alaska
    Anvik Alaska eifs expert witnessAnvik Alaska building code compliance expert witnessAnvik Alaska multi family design expert witnessAnvik Alaska construction forensic expert witnessAnvik Alaska slope failure expert witnessAnvik Alaska building expertAnvik Alaska construction expert testimony
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Anvik, 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 Anvik 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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Anvik Alaska


    What is an Alternative Dispute Resolution?

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

    The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    NEHRP Recommendations Likely To Improve Seismic Design

    Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    Cybersecurity “Flash” Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    4 Lessons Contractors Can Learn From The COVID-19 Crisis

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    Include Contract Clauses for Protection Against Ever-Evolving Construction Challenges

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Wilke Fleury and Attorneys Recognized as ‘Best Law Firm’ and ‘Best Lawyers’ by U.S. News!

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    President Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline Bill

    Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Foreclosing Junior Lienholders and Recording A Lis Pendens
    Corporate Profile

    ANVIK ALASKA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Anvik, Alaska Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Anvik'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
    Anvik, Alaska

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    March 12, 2014 —
    In Manhattan, New York, a “Supreme Court judge partially granted a temporary restraining order to Africa Israel,” which “means the developer does not at this time have to cede control of the Downtown Condominium board to unit owners, following a February lawsuit against the developers by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,” according to The Real Deal. The condominium battle began after Schneiderman filed suit against the developers, claiming that they did not fix construction defects, which in turn caused them to fail to obtain a certificate of occupancy, reported The Real Deal. The attorney general “also alleged that the pair misappropriated more than $9 million placed in an escrow account to finance those repairs.” However, according to The Real Deal, Africa Israel has claimed not to be a sponsor of the building. “Attorney Aaron Abraham, representing both Africa Israel and the sponsor of 15 Broad, claimed …that Africa Israel, an Israeli development firm led by billionaire Lev Leviev, never signed any documents claiming to be a sponsor of the building, noting that the sponsor principals were Boymelgreen and Pinchas Cohen.” Steve Sladkus, attorney for the condominium unit owners, told The Real Deal, “They partnered up with Boymelgreen — they need to deal with the fallout of that.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Mixed Reality for Construction: Applicability and Reality

    July 22, 2019 —
    One technology available to the digital contractor for mapping what’s happening in the physical world with the 3D models is mixed reality. Mixed reality often includes both augmented reality and virtual reality. Preconstruction Phase During the preconstruction design phase, mixed reality can be used for a number of tasks, such as:
    • conducting design iterations;
    • communicating designs to owners;
    • visualizing the impact of design changes;
    • discovering design and coordination clashes; and
    • mocking up virtual interior designs.
    Marketing Mixed reality can also be used to create marketing material, such as a virtual showroom. Imagine being able to show a potential client what the building will look like. For example, the client, wearing mixed-reality glasses, can see the physical neighborhood with the building or can take a virtual “walk” through of an apartment before it it is even completed. Reprinted courtesy of A. Vincent Vasquez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sanctions Award Against Pro Se Plaintiff Upheld

    June 22, 2020 —
    The plaintiff's failure to timely name an expert witness in his bad faith action led to sanctions being awarded against him in favor of the insurer. Black v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2477 (Cal. Ct. App. April 23, 2020). After Black's claim was denied by Fireman's Fund, he communicated with company through letters, emails and phone conversations. Black complained that Fireman's Fund handled his claim improperly, engaged in illegal activities and had ties to the Nazi regime in Germany. Fireman's Fund sued Black alleging that his communications amounted to civil extortion, interference with contractual relations, interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair business practices. Fireman's Fund eventually dismissed its complaint without prejudice. Black, however, had filed a cross-complaint in which he asserted a number of claims, including bad faith. Black designated attorney Randy Hess as an expert on insurance claims. Over the next year and a half, Fireman's Fund repeatedly attempted to take Hess's deposition. In March 2018, Fireman's Fund moved to compel the deposition or exclude the testimony. The court set a July 20, 2018 deadline for the disposition to take place or else the testimony would be excluded. 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

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    September 01, 2011 —

    Remember Courthouse Square? I sure do. We have talked about the closed and evacuated LEED certified building a couple of times here on Builders Counsel. Well, it’s back in the news. This time building professionals are pointing fingers — but there is some talk about a fix. Still, its LEED certification remains.

    If you read my past articles about Courthouse Square, you can get caught up on this mess. The short of it is that Salem, Oregon had the five-story government building and bus mall completed in 2000 for $34 Million. It was awarded LEED certification during the USGBC’s infancy. Last year, it became public that the building had significantly defective concrete and design. The Salem-Keizer Transit District worked with the City of Salem to shut the building down, and it has not been occupied since.

    Last fall, Courthouse Square failed thorough forensic testing leading to a lengthy bout with a number of insurers.  The contractors and designers had been hauled into court, but the Transit District was able to settle with the architect and contractors. The only remaining party involved in the lawsuit appears to be the engineering firm, Century West Engineering. Most expert reports have pinned the responsibility for the poor design and materials on Century West’s shoulders.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    October 23, 2018 —
    As anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me. One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land. In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    December 29, 2020 —
    Among the recent decisions dismissing complaints for business interruption and civil authority coverage due to closures caused by COVID-19 are Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166808 (S.D. Calif. Sept. 11, 2020) and Sandy Point Dental v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171979 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2020). The difficulty in proving "direct physical loss" was the downfall of both cases. In Pappy's, claims were made for business income losses insured as a result of local and state closure orders. The policy required "direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises." Plaintiffs argued that "direct physical loss of" did not require a tangible damage or alteration to property and that the loss of the ability to continue operating their businesses as a result of the government orders met this requirement. The court relied upon a prior decision, 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165252 (C.D. Calif. Sept. 2, 2020) [post here], where the court noted that under California law, losses from inability to use property did not amount to "direct physical loss" within the meaning of the policy. 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

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    December 22, 2019 —
    The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

    May 10, 2021 —
    One of the thorns in the side of every construction defect defense litigator is the implied warranty claim. The “implied warranty” is a promise that Colorado law is “implied” into every contract for a sale of a new home that the home was built in a workmanlike manner and is suitable for habitation. Defense attorneys dislike the implied warranty claim because it is akin to a strict liability standard. All that is required to provide the claim is that an aspect of construction is found to be defective — i.e., inconsistent with the building code or manufacturer’s installation instructions — regardless of whether the work was performed to the standard of care. The implied warranty claim is therefore easier to prove than a negligence claim, where a claimant must prove that a construction professional’s work fell below a standard of reasonable care. Additionally, it is not a defense to an implied warranty claim that the homeowners or the HOA are, themselves, partially liable for the defects where damage is due in part to insufficient or deferred maintenance, as it is for negligence claims. The only redeeming aspect to the implied warranty claim was that, until recently, it was believed that it could only be asserted by a first purchaser against the seller of an improvement, because the implied warranty arises out of the sale contract. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals opinion in Brooktree Village Homeowners Association v. Brooktree Village, LLC, 19CA1635, decided on November 19, 2020, extended the reach of the implied warranty — though just how far remains to be seen. Specifically, a division of the Court of Appeals held that an HOA can assert implied warranty claims on behalf of its members for defects in common areas, even where there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties to base the warranty upon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com