BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Brown County Nebraska hospital construction expert witness Brown County Nebraska landscaping construction expert witness Brown County Nebraska institutional building expert witness Brown County Nebraska concrete tilt-up expert witness Brown County Nebraska Medical building expert witness Brown County Nebraska housing expert witness Brown County Nebraska condominium expert witness Brown County Nebraska custom homes expert witness Brown County Nebraska condominiums expert witness Brown County Nebraska retail construction expert witness Brown County Nebraska industrial building expert witness Brown County Nebraska high-rise construction expert witness Brown County Nebraska structural steel construction expert witness Brown County Nebraska office building expert witness Brown County Nebraska custom home expert witness Brown County Nebraska parking structure expert witness Brown County Nebraska Subterranean parking expert witness Brown County Nebraska tract home expert witness Brown County Nebraska multi family housing expert witness Brown County Nebraska production housing expert witness Brown County Nebraska townhome construction expert witness Brown County Nebraska
    Brown County Nebraska OSHA expert witness constructionBrown County Nebraska civil engineer expert witnessBrown County Nebraska consulting engineersBrown County Nebraska construction expertsBrown County Nebraska roofing construction expertBrown County Nebraska slope failure expert witnessBrown County Nebraska expert witness windows
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Roofing Expert Witness Builders Information
    Brown County, Nebraska

    Nebraska Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Actions alleging a breach of warranty and construction defect are governed by a four-year statute of limitations (which may be extended by two years if the cause of action is not or could not reasonably have been discovered within the four-year period) and a ten-year statute of repose for latent defects.


    Roofing Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Brown County Nebraska

    Businesses must register with the Secretary of State. No state license is required for general contracting, however, local licensure is needed in counties with populations over 100,000. Licensure is required for the electrical trade.


    Roofing Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of the Norfolk Area
    Local # 2890
    PO Box 425
    Tilden, NE 68781
    Brown County Nebraska Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of the Norfolk Area
    Local # 2890
    PO Box 425
    Tilden, NE 68781
    Brown County Nebraska Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Columbus Home Builders Association
    Local # 2805
    3121 39th St
    Columbus, NE 68601
    Brown County Nebraska Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Columbus Home Builders Association
    Local # 2805
    3121 39th St
    Columbus, NE 68601
    Brown County Nebraska Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Metro Omaha Builders Assn
    Local # 2872
    4141 N 156th Street Ste 100
    Omaha, NE 68116

    Brown County Nebraska Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Metro Omaha Builders Assn
    Local # 2872
    4141 N 156th Street Ste 100
    Omaha, NE 68116

    Brown County Nebraska Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North Platte Chapter
    Local # 2854
    PO Box 146
    North Platte, NE 69103
    Brown County Nebraska Roofing Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Roofing Expert Witness News and Information
    For Brown County Nebraska


    Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute

    Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

    Modular Construction’s Big Boom: New Risks Outpacing Standard Contracts in Industrial Projects

    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    July 1, 2015 Statutory Changes Affecting Virginia Contractors and Subcontractors

    Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

    AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay

    Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

    The Economic Loss Rule and the Disclosure of Latent Defects: In re the Estate of Carol S. Gattis

    Construction Contractors Must Understand Retainage In 2021

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Payne & Fears Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2025 Best Law Firms®

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid

    Michigan Bid-Rig Plea Lands Former Asphalt Paving Executive in Prison

    From Dark Data to Building Intelligence

    Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin Dismissed

    California Attempts to Tackle Housing Affordability Crisis

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Rises for First Time in Two Years

    Angela Cooner Receives Prestigious ASA State Advocate Award

    Sacramento Water Works Recognized as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    4 Breakthrough Panama Canal Engineering Innovations

    Musings: Moving or Going into a New Service Area, There is More to It Than Just…

    Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim

    ABC Chapter President Comments on Miami Condo Collapse

    Neighbors Fight to Halt Construction after Asbestos found on Property

    Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    Drill Rig Accident Kills Engineering Manager, Injures Operator in Philadelphia

    Massive Wildfire Near Boulder, Colo., Destroys Nearly 1,000 Homes and Businesses

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Slump to Lowest Level Since November

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    Top Developments: 2025 - Issue 2

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner
    Corporate Profile

    BROWN COUNTY NEBRASKA ROOFING EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Brown County, Nebraska 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 Brown 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
    Brown County, Nebraska

    The “Pay When Paid” Clause in California Construction—Strategies as the Battle Continues

    August 03, 2026 —
    It is well known in California Construction circles that the “Pay If Paid” clause is illegal in this state. There is a great distinction, though, between this clause and a similar clause, known as a “Pay When Paid” clause. A pay if paid clause allows a contractor to tell a subcontractor that if the contractor is unpaid for the subcontractor’s work, then the contractor has no legal obligation to pay the subcontractor, ever. For a great variety of reasons, the California Supreme Court, in the case of Wm. R. Clarke Corp v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, declared this type of clause illegal in California Construction. Although the pay if paid clause is illegal in California, the pay when paid clause is still perfectly legal and is found in many subcontracts that contractors issue to their subcontractors. The pay when paid clause allows a contractor to delay paying its subcontractors until the dispute between the contractor and the property owner over payment has been resolved and the contractor is paid by the property owner. Although seemingly reasonable (since it merely delays payment until the contractor is paid by the owner, thereby providing a funding source to pay subcontractors), significant problems still arise. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Snell & Wilmer Recognized Among the Top 10 Largest Law Firms in Orange County by the Orange County Business Journal for the Ninth Consecutive Year

    April 27, 2026 —
    ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been named the eighth largest law firm in Orange County on the Orange County Business Journal’s 2026 List of Law Firms. The office has been ranked among the top 10 largest law firms in the region by the Orange County Business Journal for nine consecutive years. “We are proud to once again be recognized among the top law firms in Orange County,” said Jonathan E. Frank, managing partner of the firm’s Orange County office. “This recognition is a testament to the outstanding attorneys and professionals in our Orange County office and the clients who trust us with their most important matters. Being ranked among the top 10 largest firms in the region for nine consecutive years reflects both the strength of our team and our deep commitment to serving the Orange County business community.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

    Georgia HB 676: A Bill Property Owners and Contractors Should Watch

    March 24, 2026 —
    Property owners, contractors, and others dealing with mechanics and materialmen’s liens in Georgia should keep an eye on HB 676, which is currently making its way through the Georgia General Assembly. The bill aims to curb misuse of the lien process and provide additional remedies to those challenging a frivolous lien filing. What HB 676 Would Do HB 676 would add a new Code section (O.C.G.A. § 44-14-366.6) to the mechanics and materialmen’s lien statutes. If a lien is filed “without substantial justification or that is not made in good faith or that is made with malice or a wrongful purpose,” this new Code section would impose a fine of $1,500 per lien on the lien claimant, in addition to any attorney’s fees or court costs incurred by the party challenging the lien. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Lafayette, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
    Mr. Lafayette may be contacted at rlafayette@seyfarth.com

    SDNY Ruling Highlights Privilege Risks in Client Use of Generative AI

    March 03, 2026 —
    Artificial intelligence is quickly becoming a go‑to tool for aggregating and summarizing large volumes of data, formulating and testing arguments, and even sketching litigation strategies. But a recent ruling from the Southern District of New York serves as a stark warning: when clients turn to generative AI for legal strategy, they may be unknowingly turning privileged information over to a third party and then creating documents that may later be discoverable in litigation. In a closely watched bench decision, Judge Rakoff ruled that AI‑generated documents created by the target of a criminal investigation using Anthropic’s Claude were not privileged despite being generated with information learned from his attorneys to support his potential legal defense and then shared with his counsel. The decision highlights the unresolved and increasingly consequential intersection of AI, privilege, and discovery. Facts Bradley Heppner received a grand jury subpoena and hired attorneys at Quinn Emanuel to represent him. After learning he was a target of the investigation, but before he was arrested, he created 31 documents with Claude using information from his attorneys to outline a potential defense strategy. He was later arrested on charges of securities and wire fraud, and federal agents seized his electronic devices, which contained the 31 documents that had been provided to his attorneys. Mr. Heppner argued that the documents were created to prepare his potential defense strategy in anticipation of an indictment, but he conceded that he made the decision to prepare the reports on his own, i.e., not at the direction of counsel. He nevertheless claimed the documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; the government moved to overrule the objections. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Orange County Team for Securing a Strong MSJ Result in a Residential Gas Explosion Matter!

    May 14, 2026 —
    Huge Congratulations to Partner Kevin Wheeler and Associate Lindsey Wells for securing a strong result on a Motion for Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication filed on behalf of their client, the City of Murrieta. This was a complex, multi-party matter arising from a residential gas leak and explosion, where Plaintiffs alleged the City and MFPD failed to properly respond to the incident. After multiple complaints were consolidated and extensive defense work narrowed the case, eighteen plaintiffs remained asserting five causes of action against the City, prompting a comprehensive MSJ/MSA targeting liability, causation, and damages. The Court’s ruling reflects a significant win, particularly on the immunity framework. The Court eliminated the core negligence and assumed-duty claims arising from fire protection and emergency response activities. It further disposed of the misrepresentation and public nuisance claims. At the end of the day, three plaintiffs were dismissed entirely for failure to comply with Government Claims Act requirements, further reducing the scope of the case. While the dangerous condition claim remains, it does so in a very limited posture. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Data Center Construction and the AEC Partner of the Future

    April 14, 2026 —
    During my involvement in designing mobile phone production facilities, the speed of design and construction was critical. Any delay could directly translate into lost revenue. That same logic now applies to data centers, though the stakes are much higher. Instead of optimizing physical production lines, we are constructing infrastructure for digital production. The global data center capacity is expected to nearly double by 2030, and with this level of demand, the traditional project-by-project delivery model begins to show its limitations. Data centers are no longer isolated projects in the traditional sense. They are evolving into repeatable, scalable production systems, making them ideal environments for AEC process and business model innovation. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Applying Jury Verdict Method in Quantifying Damages Due to Defective Specifications

    March 31, 2026 —
    An older case deals with three important considerations: (1) defective specifications; (2) whether the defective specifications were misleading or misrepresentative; and (3) applying the jury verdict method in quantifying damages. In Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., 80 Fed. Cl. 178 (Fed. Cl. 2008), a contractor was contracted by the federal government to construct a warehouse. There were defects in the structural steel design specifications underlying the standing seam metal roof installed by the contractor and, as a result, the roof system leaked causing damage. The contractor incurred significant costs in repairing the damage, and pursued recovery of these costs against the government. The contractor claimed the structural steel design serving as the framework for the metal roof was defective and misleading and caused the leaks. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    CEO: Power Isn’t the Only Electrical Challenge for AI Data Centers

    April 14, 2026 —
    Everyone knows that data centers are voracious consumers of electricity. In fact, the U.S. is currently scrambling to meet unprecedented levels of power demand not seen since the early days of electrification and the widespread adoption of air conditioning. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Francesco "Frio" Iorio, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com