BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania parking structure expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania condominiums expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania structural steel construction expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania hospital construction expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania housing expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania industrial building expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania multi family housing expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania low-income housing expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania office building expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania Subterranean parking expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania retail construction expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania casino resort expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania Medical building expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania landscaping construction expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania production housing expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania concrete tilt-up expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania custom home expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania condominium expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania high-rise construction expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania townhome construction expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania tract home expert witness Allegheny County Pennsylvania
    Allegheny County Pennsylvania reconstruction expert witnessAllegheny County Pennsylvania expert witness windowsAllegheny County Pennsylvania expert witness concrete failureAllegheny County Pennsylvania slope failure expert witnessAllegheny County Pennsylvania consulting engineersAllegheny County Pennsylvania construction expert witnessAllegheny County Pennsylvania construction experts
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Roofing Expert Witness Builders Information
    Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 1875 stipulates that “no later than 90 days before filing an action, serve written notice of claim on the contractor. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 15 days to forward the claim to any subcontractor/supplier and 30 days after service of notice to offer to compromise and settle the claim by monetary payment without inspection, propose to inspect the dwelling that is the subject of the claim; or reject the claim. Contractor has 14 days after inspection to provide written notice of intention.”


    Roofing Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Allegheny County Pennsylvania

    No state license required. For public works projects, see General Services website.


    Roofing Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Indiana-Armstrong Builders Association
    Local # 3914
    1380 Route 286 Highway East Suite 502
    Indiana, PA 15701

    Allegheny County Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Indiana-Armstrong Builders Association
    Local # 3914
    1380 Route 286 Highway East Suite 502
    Indiana, PA 15701

    Allegheny County Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lehigh Valley Builders Association
    Local # 3904
    1524 W Linden St
    Allentown, PA 18102

    Allegheny County Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lehigh Valley Builders Association
    Local # 3904
    1524 W Linden St
    Allentown, PA 18102

    Allegheny County Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Schuylkill Builders Assn
    Local # 3954
    1036 Schylkill Mountain Rd
    Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972

    Allegheny County Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Schuylkill Builders Assn
    Local # 3954
    1036 Schylkill Mountain Rd
    Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972

    Allegheny County Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Mifflin-Juniata Chapter
    Local # 3926
    5 Oak Drive
    Thompsontown, PA 17094

    Allegheny County Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Roofing Expert Witness News and Information
    For Allegheny County Pennsylvania


    Bill Seeks to Protect Legitimate Contractors

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Skanska Will Work With Florida on Barge-Caused Damage to Pensacola Bay Bridge

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

    Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/30/24) – Life Science Construction to Increase, Overall Homeownership Is Majority Female, and Senators Urge Fed Chair to Lower Interest Rates

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

    The Choice Is Yours – Or Is It? Anti-Choice-of-Laws Statutes Applicable to Construction Contracts

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    New Jersey Court Adopts Continuous Trigger for Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Attorneys: Contract Negotiation Strategy

    Business Insurance Names Rachel Hudgins Among 2024 Break Out Award Winners

    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

    Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

    2019 Legislative Session

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues

    Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code Impact Your Construction Project?

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

    Cold Weather Causes Power Blackouts, Disruptions on Jobsites

    Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them

    Housing Starts in U.S. Little Changed From Stronger January

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

    Insured Survives Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case

    Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

    Velazquez Framing, LLC v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (Take 2) – Pre-lien Notice for Labor Unambiguously Not Required

    Lost in Translation: AEC Tech’s Missing Role

    Potential Gap in Workers Compensation Immunity Statutory Framework

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado
    Corporate Profile

    ALLEGHENY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Roofing Expert Witness 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 Allegheny County'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.

    Roofing Expert Witness News & Info
    Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

    The Modern Nuclear Renaissance Reaches New England

    April 14, 2026 —
    On March 31, 2026, the governors of all six New England states issued a joint, bipartisan statement committing the region to explore deployment of advanced nuclear energy technologies while supporting the continued safe, affordable and reliable operation of New England’s existing nuclear generation facilities. This coordinated regional initiative follows a major policy announcement in June 2025 by New York Governor Kathy Hochul directing the New York Power Authority to pursue development of at least 1,000 MW of advanced nuclear generation to support statewide reliability needs and New York’s zero‑carbon mission. Less than one year after New York formally embraced a modern nuclear renaissance, that renaissance has now expanded across the New England states—signaling a broader Northeast regional pivot toward nuclear as a core element of long‑term reliability, affordability and decarbonization strategies. For utilities and power generators, this shift creates both opportunities and planning imperatives that warrant immediate attention. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury
    Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com

    Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute

    May 05, 2026 —
    In an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured. The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured: This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Credibility Matters…Even in Delay Claims

    September 29, 2026 —
    Credibility matters. Here’s another example involving a delay claim on public private partnership delivery method. The project agreement required claims to be tried by a hearing examiner. The public private partnership developer (for lack of a better term) submitted delay claims that it contended were caused by Miami-Dade County. The hearing examiner awarded the developer delay time and compensation. On appeal, the County argued that the delays awarded by the hearing examiner were concurrent critical path delays with other delays caused by the developer’s team (the developer’s contractor). This was demonstrated by the fact that in an attempt to mitigate the County delay, the contractor’s incorporated a schedule fragnet into its schedule to mitigate delay that showed the critical path was driven by events deemed caused by the contractor. This was also reported in the contractor’s monthly updates. The developer argued that its mitigation plan did not work and, thus, the schedules showed a hypothetical delay caused by the contractor when, in actuality, it was the County-caused delay that drove the critical path. The hearing officer agreed with the contractor. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Landlord Determined to Not Qualify as Additional Insured

    September 08, 2026 —
    In a dispute between two insurers, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the landlord was not an additional insured under the tenant’s policy. Peleus Ins. Co. v. Am. European Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 June 22, 2026). Blossom Miller sued 57th Avenue and 21st Century in state court alleging that she was injured when she tripped on the sidewalk in front of the leased premises (the “Miller Action”). The premises was leased by 57th Avenue to 21st Century. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

    July 13, 2026 —
    On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

    No Bad Faith Despite Insurer’s Appraisal Award Exceeding Initial Payment

    August 03, 2026 —
    The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding no bad faith despite the appraisal award exceeding the amount the insurer initially paid. Jazi Kat 4659 Rockridge LLC, et al. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., et al., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105634 (D. Ariz. May 13, 2026). Plaintiffs sued Travelers for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that Travelers failed to pay money plaintiffs were owed under the policy. Plaintiffs held a commercial property policy for two properties. A fire destroyed one of the properties. Travelers adjusted the claim and issued two payments. Plaintiffs disagreed with the amount of the payments and demanded an appraisal. Travelers agreed to the appraisal. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Suit Limitation Provision Eliminates Wind Loss Claim

    July 27, 2026 —
    The insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted after the insured failed to file suit against the insurer within the policy’s two-year suit limitation provision. Interstate Investments, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98108 (S.D. N. Y. May 4, 2026). On or before June 27, 2023, a wind, hail and rainstorm damaged Interstate’s property in Oklahoma. Interstate filed a claim under its policy with Mt. Hawley. The policy provided that New York law applied and contained a two- year suit limitation provision. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    WSHB Managing Partner Chad Dunigan Named Finalist for Jerrold S. Oliver "Ollie" Award of Excellence

    May 12, 2026 —
    Chad Dunigan, Managing Partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Orlando, Florida, office, has been selected as one of just four finalists for the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, affectionately known in the construction defect community as the "Ollie" Award. This distinguished honor recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions and demonstrated unwavering dedication to advancing the field of construction defect law. Named in honor of the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a revered founder of alternative dispute resolution in construction defect claims and litigation, the Ollie award symbolizes loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Judge Oliver's legacy as a staunch believer in the resolution process continues to inspire professionals who strive for excellence in the construction defect community. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wood Smith Henning Berman