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

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

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

    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

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

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

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

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Kaltag Alaska

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    New Index Tracking Mortgages for New Homes

    July Sees Big Drop in Home Sales

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

    The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

    Self-Storage Magnates Cash In on the Surge in Real Estate

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    In Hong Kong, You Can Find a Home Where the Buffalo Roam

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Effects of Amendment to Florida's Statute of Repose on the Products Completed Operations Hazard

    Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Take Advantage of AI and Data Intelligence in Construction

    Homebuilding Continues to Recover in San Antonio Area

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm
    Corporate Profile


    With over four thousand general contracting and design related expert designations, the Kaltag, Alaska Construction Expert Directory provides a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to attorneys and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides construction claims and trial 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 captive resources which comprise building envelope and design experts, forensic engineers, forensic architects, and construction cost and scheduling consultants, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Kaltag and the surrounding areas.

    Kaltag Alaska roofing construction expertKaltag Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationKaltag Alaska engineering expert witnessKaltag Alaska expert witness windowsKaltag Alaska civil engineer expert witnessKaltag Alaska architectural expert witnessKaltag Alaska contractor expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Kaltag, Alaska

    Five Reasons to Hire Older Workers—and How to Keep Them

    July 06, 2020 —
    The economic downturn in 2008 created a black hole of talent in the construction industry. As a result, finding project managers between the ages of 28 and 33 and superintendents between the ages of 23 and 30 in today’s market can be difficult, if not impossible in some cases. To make up for this gap in available talent, construction executives are going to have to look to project managers and superintendents in the 58-to-64 age range. Fortunately, there are numerous benefits to hiring older workers. 1. OLDER WORKERS WANT TO MENTOR THE NEXT GENERATION. This is their most significant benefit: the older generation truly enjoys teaching younger construction workers and passing on skills and knowledge, while also getting to do a job they’re good at. This means investing in one experienced worker today can pay dividends for the quality of a company’s workforce for decades to come, as mentorship programs have proven to increase the skills and loyalty of younger workers. If a company wants someone with deep knowledge and broad experience to help mold the next generation of construction workers, they should hire an older employee. Reprinted courtesy of Charlie Kimmel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    July 06, 2020 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    June 08, 2020 —
    On May 18, 2020, AB 828 was amended and is currently on its second reading in the Senate Rules Committee. This legislation proposes a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and unlawful detainers while Governor Newsom's COVID-19 emergency order is in effect. In addition to the moratorium, AB 828 also required landlords to reduce rent by 25% under certain circumstances. AB 828 was amended to remove the provision that required landlords to reduce rent by 25% for 12 months. The new provision requires landlords to allow tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenants to start paying rent the month following the end of the emergency order. Tenants must timely pay monthly rent plus 10% of any rent due and owing when the emergency order ended. Under AB 828, a tenant may stipulate to the entry of an order in response to a residential unlawful detainer action filed by the landlord. Upon a hearing, the court determines if the tenant's inability to pay rent is the result of increased expenses or a reduction in income due to COVID-19. The court must also make a determination that there is no material economic hardship for the landlord. Upon making such determinations, the court will issue an order that permits the tenant to remain in possession, and requires tenant to commence rental payments the month following the end of the COVID-19 emergency order. Tenant's payment would include the monthly rent plus 10% of an unpaid rent during the COVID-19 emergency order, but excludes any late charges or other fees or charges. The tenant would be required to make timely payments, and if tenant fails to do so, after a 48 hour notice from landlord, the landlord can file for an immediate writ of possession in favor of the landlord and money judgment for any unpaid balance, court costs and attorneys' fees. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at or visit us at Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    September 14, 2020 —
    We sat down with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen of Henning Larsen’s Sustainability Engineering Department. Our talk covered the need for interdisciplinary research, sustainable practice, and how technology will lead change in the years ahead. Can you tell us a bit about your professional background and what you’re currently working on? I’m a partner with Henning Larsen and work with around 300 architects globally. We’re based in Copenhagen where we’re 200 people strong, with branches throughout the world. I’m a trained engineer with a civil engineering background – making me the first partner that’s not an architect. I’ve been with the company for 15 years and joined as an industrial research Ph.D. in Denmark. For my first three years here, I was employed as a researcher doing research and energy-efficient building design. And that’s where we started with our approach to sustainability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

    August 03, 2020 —
    Sometimes it’s right there before your eyes. Then, poof, it’s gone. This was the experience of one insured, who brought a bad faith insurance denial claim against his insurer thinking that the facts were in his favor, only to discover they were not. The 501 E .51st Street Case The Water Main Break and AGI’s Report The owner of a 10-unit apartment building built in 1963, 501 East 51st Street, Long Beach-10 LLC (just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?), filed a bad faith action against its insurer Kookmin Best Insurance Co., Ltd., after it denied 501 East’s insurance tender following a water main break that caused the building’s foundation to subside. The water main break occurred sometimes between December 31, 2015 and January 2, 2016 next to the southwest side of the building. 501 East tendered its insurance claim to Kookmin on March 8, 2016, and in April 2016, presented a report prepared by American Geotechnical, Inc. (“AGI”) concerning damage to the building. According to the report prepared by AGI, AGI conducted a “limited geotechnical investigation” to “evaluate site conditions relating to the reported building distress following a waterline breach near the south end of the building.” The scope of AGI’s investigation was limited to “observation, photo documentation of the site conditions, [and[ floor-level survey of the interior of the first level units.” AGI’s investigation did not involve any subsurface investigation or soil testing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

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

    May 18, 2020 —
    On April 1, 2020, the First Circuit, applying Massachusetts law, issued a potentially useful decision addressing the Montrose “known loss” language in ISO Form CGL policies. In Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,[1] the court applied this language to allow denial of defense for claims of recurring water infiltration that began before the insurer’s policy period, and it found an insurer had no duty to investigate whether the course of property damage might have been interrupted, or whether other property damage might have occurred during the policy period, so as to trigger coverage during a later policy. In the underlying dispute, a condominium owner (Doherty) asserted negligence claims against her association’s property management company (Lundgren) stemming from alleged water infiltration into her condominium. The complaint said leaks developed in 2004 in the roof above Doherty’s unit, and repairs were not made in a timely or appropriate manner. The following year, the complaint said, a Lundgren employee notified Doherty that the threshold leading to her condominium's deck was rotting. In February 2006, Doherty discovered a mushroom and water infiltration on the threshold and notified Lundgren. At that time, Lundgren asked its maintenance and repair contractor (CBD) to replace the rotting threshold. According to the complaint, CBD did not do this repair in a timely manner and left debris exposed in Doherty’s bedroom. In March 2006, the complaint said, a mold testing company hired by Lundgren found hazardous mold in Doherty's unit, caused by water intrusions and chronic dampness. Lundgren’s attempts at remediation were ineffectual. In September 2008, Doherty's doctor ordered her to leave the condominium and not to return until the leaks were repaired and mold was eliminated. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at Mr. Moody may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

    August 10, 2020 —
    In Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance. Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski and Austin F. Smith Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at Mr. Smith may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

    August 24, 2020 —
    There are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend? Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997). Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo E. Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Ms. Meta may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of