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

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    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

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

    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 Pilot Station Alaska

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    Inside New York’s Newest Architectural Masterpiece for the Mega-Rich

    Woman Files Suit for Property Damages

    Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

    Terminating Notice of Commencement Without Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

    Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    Construction Firm Sues Town over Claims of Building Code Violations

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

    Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

    Supreme Court of Wisconsin Applies Pro Rata Allocation Based on Policy Limits to Co-Insurance Dispute

    Construction Defects Checklist

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

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

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich
    Corporate Profile


    Through over four thousand construction and design related expert witness designations, the Pilot Station, Alaska Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction related litigation support and expert witness services to the nation's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, general liability carriers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. In connection with in house assets which include building envelope and design experts, forensic engineers, forensic architects, and construction cost and scheduling consultants, the firm brings national experience and local capabilities to Pilot Station and the surrounding areas.

    Pilot Station Alaska engineering expert witnessPilot Station Alaska construction expert witnessPilot Station Alaska delay claim expert witnessPilot Station Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessPilot Station Alaska expert witness commercial buildingsPilot Station Alaska roofing construction expertPilot Station Alaska ada design expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Pilot Station, Alaska

    Corps Proposes $4.6B Plan to Steel Miami for Storm Surge

    June 22, 2020 —
    A $4.6-billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal to protect Miami from future storm surge, largely by building massive sea walls and elevating infrastructure systems, is the latest of such plans the agency has developed for East Coast communities. Pam Radtke Russell, Engineering News-Record Ms. Russell may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

    June 29, 2020 —
    The Eighth Circuit faced unusual facts in determining that the collapse of a cave serving as a storage facility was not covered under the policy. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Interstate Underground Warehouse & Storage, Inc., 2020 U. S. App. LEXIS 83 8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020). Interstate operated an underground storage facility in a cave that formerly housed a limestone mine. In 2014, Interstate experienced a series of "dome-outs," in which layers of rock destabilized, detached, and collapsed from above into the cave. Interstate's policy with Westchester included coverage for collapse of a "building" caused by "building decay." Westchester sought a declaratory judgment that Interstate's loss was not covered. The district court granted summary judgment for Westchester because the cause of the loss was not "building decay" within the meaning of the primary 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

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    July 13, 2020 —
    Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:
    In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.
    U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    No Global MDL for COVID Business Interruption Claims, but Panel Will Consider Separate Consolidated Proceedings for Lloyds, Cincinnati, Hartford, Society

    August 24, 2020 —
    In a widely anticipated ruling, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied two motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in hundreds of federal cases seeking coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Panel has ordered expedited briefing on whether four separate consolidated proceedings should be set up for four insurers – Cincinnati, Society, Hartford, and Lloyds – who appear to be named in the largest number of claims. In seeking a single, industry-wide MDL proceeding, some plaintiffs had argued that common questions predominated across the hundreds of pending federal suits: namely, [1] the question of what constituted ‘physical loss or damage’ to property, under the allegedly standardized terms of various insurers’ policies; [2] the question whether various government closure orders should trigger coverage under those policies, and [3] the question whether any exclusions, particularly virus exclusions, applied. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Konrad R. Krebs, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at Mr. Krebs may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    July 13, 2020 —
    On May 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided three significant environmental law cases. Two of these cases involved whether global warming tort cases could be brought in California state courts on, for example, a public nuisance claim, and whether the defendant energy companies had the right to have them removed to the federal courts. County of San Mateo, et al. v. Chevron Corp., et al. and City of Oakland v. BP PLC, et al. While acknowledging the immensity of the legal issues, the Ninth Circuit held that the federal removal statutes did not permit these cases to be removed to the federal courts. For one thing, state court jurisdiction was not preempted by the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the ruling of Federal Judge Chhabria in the Chevron case, and vacated Judge Alsup’s ruling in the BP case that he had jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to federal common law, and then to dismiss it. The court also remanded the case to Judge Alsup, and directed him to determine if there was an “alternate basis” for federal court jurisdiction based on the pleadings that an issue of ”navigable waters” was a concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

    September 07, 2020 —
    As the effects of coronavirus continue, organizations and companies now are considering whether events in late 2020 and early 2021 can take place or need to be converted to virtual events. What insurance effects will those changes and cancellations have? Consideration of these important decisions requires a review of both event-cancellation insurance and a consideration of force majeure and other such issues. On the insurance front, years ago, many policyholders purchased event-cancellation insurance for events in 2020, 2021, and even as far out as 2024. Such policies, purchased before the middle of March 2020, generally contain explicit coverage “buy-backs” for losses from “communicable disease.” That is, the policyholders paid an extra, specifically identified premium to remove any exclusion for communicable disease from these policies. Typically, these policies do not use the word, “virus”, but rather use “communicable disease”; and exclude neither. Those policies typically cover a specified amount of net profit and include additional coverages for “Cost of Remedial Action”, “Future Marketing Expense”, etc., over and above that specified amount of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at Ms. Ellis may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

    April 27, 2020 —
    An ever-expanding number of states and local government authorities are issuing “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders that restrict the movement of employees of non-essential businesses. These orders have prompted many businesses to question whether they qualify as “essential,” requiring employees to continue working. With substantial differences among the stay at home orders – and even potential conflicts between state and local directives – it is a matter of extreme urgency for businesses to determine whether they fall within the definition of “essential,” particularly as many of these orders include civil and criminal penalties. Developments are unfolding very quickly, and clients we are advising are encountering law enforcement visits and threats of criminal prosecution as a consequence of decisions to stay open. As these designations are heavily fact-specific, and being revised, advance preparation and advice of counsel are essential. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk and Jane C. Luxton Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Ms. Funk may be contacted at Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Latest Updates On The Coronavirus Pandemic

    March 30, 2020 —
    Coronavirus has struck a heavy blow against the world economy as it forces countries into lockdown with "closed for business" signs, hollows out the tourism, travel and hospitality sectors, turns out the lights on business gatherings and events, sends employees home to work and drives the stock market into a dizzying tumble. ENR Editors ENR may be contacted at Read the full story for ENR's ongoing reporting, analysis and commentary on construction sector developments Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of