• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Coldfoot Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Coldfoot Alaska institutional building expert witness Coldfoot Alaska townhome construction expert witness Coldfoot Alaska hospital construction expert witness Coldfoot Alaska multi family housing expert witness Coldfoot Alaska low-income housing expert witness Coldfoot Alaska custom home expert witness Coldfoot Alaska industrial building expert witness Coldfoot Alaska casino resort expert witness Coldfoot Alaska custom homes expert witness Coldfoot Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Coldfoot Alaska condominium expert witness Coldfoot Alaska office building expert witness Coldfoot Alaska tract home expert witness Coldfoot Alaska parking structure expert witness Coldfoot Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Coldfoot Alaska Medical building expert witness Coldfoot Alaska housing expert witness Coldfoot Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Coldfoot Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Coldfoot Alaska retail construction expert witness Coldfoot Alaska
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Coldfoot, 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.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Coldfoot Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

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

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

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

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

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    Wasilla, AK 99654

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

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Coldfoot Alaska

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

    Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

    Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way

    Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

    2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    Home Prices Expected to Increase All Over the U.S.

    Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

    Navigate the New Health and Safety Norm With Construction Technology

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

    Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Construction Defects Claims Can Be Limited by Contract Says Washington Court

    If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act

    President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss
    Corporate Profile


    With over 4500 engineering, construction, and builders standard of care related expert designations, the Coldfoot, Alaska Construction Expert Directory provides a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking meaningful resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction related consulting and expert witness support services to the construction industry's most recognized companies, legal professionals, Fortune 500 builders, CGL carriers, owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. Utilizing in house resources which comprise credentialed construction consultants, NCARB certified architects, forensic engineers, building envelope and design experts, the firm brings specialized expertise and local capabilities to the Coldfoot region.

    Coldfoot Alaska building consultant expertColdfoot Alaska construction expertsColdfoot Alaska consulting general contractorColdfoot Alaska construction expert witness public projectsColdfoot Alaska construction defect expert witnessColdfoot Alaska construction expert testimonyColdfoot Alaska ada design expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Coldfoot, Alaska

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    April 20, 2020 —
    On March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people. As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order). Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at Ms. McDonald may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Lawyers Recognized by JD Supra 2020 Readers' Choice Awards

    June 29, 2020 —
    Congratulations to Anthony Miscioscia, partner and Co-Chair of the Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Group, and associate Timothy Carroll who have been recognized as top authors in Insurance in the 2020 JD Supra Readers' Choice Awards. The Readers’ Choice Awards recognize top authors and firms for their thought leadership in key topics read by C-suite executives, in-house counsel, media, and other professionals across the JD Supra platform during 2019. Additionally, JD Supra recognized Subrogation counsel, Gus Sara’s alert "New Hampshire's Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers" as one of the most popular product liability articles in 2019. The Readers’ Choice Awards reflect a deep dive into JD Supra 2019 reader data, in which they studied total visibility and engagement among readers across many industries interested in certain defining topics. Along with a top firm in each category, JD Supra also features additional reader data, including the top five most-read articles, popular related topics, total number of authors, and other category-specific information. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Timothy Carroll, Anthony Miscioscia and Gus Sara Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Mr. Sara may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

    June 22, 2020 —
    In an effort to move forward a $576 million Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project, the California State Assembly passed AB 3005 on June 8, the Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act, facilitating the construction of the project. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    July 20, 2020 —
    As employers plan to return employees to the workplace, they should proceed with careful planning and incorporate best practices and measures to assure a safe, responsible and productive workplace. While there is no "one size fits all" plan, the following checklist will assist in assuring that your work environment includes the key safety components to return to the workplace in the midst of a pandemic. PREPARING THE WORKPLACE FOR RETURN & GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
    • Create a company task force, safety committee or coordinator to oversee implementation of policies that address and enforce practices related to COVID-19.
    • Ensure HVAC systems are functional, have been properly cleaned and serviced and tuned to maximize airflow and filtration.
    • Review and increase cleaning protocols in coordination with lease terms and cleaning contracts. Ensure regular and thorough office cleanings, with a focus on high-touch surfaces and areas. Document cleaning protocols and schedule.
    • Implement social distancing requirements and provide visual markers on floors in compliance with applicable federal, state and local orders.
    • Rearrange work spaces, conference rooms and lunchrooms to comply with social distancing requirements.
    • Post notices about the number of individuals permitted in elevators, stairwells, rooms and on the premises.
    • Restrict movement between departments and floors.
    Reprinted courtesy of Nancy Conrad, White and Williams LLP and George C. Morrison, White and Williams LLP Ms. Conrad may be contacted at Mr. Morrison may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Quick Note: COVID-19 Claim – Proving Causation

    August 03, 2020 —
    In certain jurisdictions, the number of people testing positive for COVID-19 is on the rise. As this occurs, there is the possibility that a construction project will have to deal with one or more workers testing positive. That is the current reality. If the dialogue has not occurred before, now is the time to discuss any enhanced measures—above OSHA guidelines—that could be implemented to address this reality and mitigate the risk. Part of the reality, though, is that regardless of the enhanced measures and mitigation, it is impossible to truly prevent this risk. No one disputes COVID-19. There may be a dispute as to whether COVID-19 constitutes a force majeure event or some other event, however, before you start labeling it, you still NEED TO PROVE the impact caused by COVID-19. There needs to be a cause-and-effect relationship so you can address (i) how this impacted the critical path of your schedule and/or (ii) how this impacted labor productivity. In other words, you need to prove causation. Stating there was a delay or loss of productivity without establishing the cause-and-effect relationship (i.e, causation) provides no value because it does not support the production impact or time extension and, without either, there is no basis for additional compensation (even if you establish it should be deemed an excusable, compensable delay). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

    August 24, 2020 —
    Fresh off the heels of the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cty. (“Montrose III”),1 policyholders scored another victory as another California court rejected horizontal exhaustion in the context of continuous injury cases. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, in SantaFe Braun Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., adopted a rule of vertical exhaustion, holding that “[absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary] the insured becomes entitled to the coverage it purchased from the excess carriers once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted.”2 The dispute in SantaFe Braun began in 1992 when asbestos-related claims were first filed against Braun. In 1998, Braun’s three primary insurers agreed in writing to defend and settle the underlying claims against Braun while resolving allocation among themselves. In 2004, Braun filed the current suit against its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the excess insurers were obligated to help cover the costs of the underlying asbestos-related lawsuits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Waters may be contacted at

    Remote Work Issues to Consider in Light of COVID-19

    March 23, 2020 —
    Many employers have elected to implement a remote work policy in light of the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. If you are one of them, you should consider the following as you transition your workforce to a remote working environment. Preliminary Steps The first step prior to implementation is ensuring that you have sufficient technological infrastructure and capabilites. You should assess what types of equipment (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, phones, printers, and office supplies) your employees will need to work remotely, and ensure that there is sufficient inventory and that employees can gain access to the equipment. You should also confirm that you have data security measures in place and brief employees on best practices for security and protection of data. You should refer employees to your organization’s technology policy regarding the safeguarding of data. If none exist, you should strongly consider creating and implementing one. One of the more important aspects of any policy is restrictions on where employees may work remotely. For example, some employers prohibit employees from working remotely on public wifi networks due to security concerns. Whether these or other policies are right for your organization depends on the nature of your work and data, security measures you have in place, and your risk tolerance. Beyond technology issues, you should prepare a checklist of necessary work items and materials that employees will need to perform their jobs remotely. You should also clearly communicate to employees which items may be removed from the workplace and taken home and which should remain. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Philip K. Lem, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Lem may be contacted at

    Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

    May 11, 2020 —
    For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at Mr. Hultz may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of