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

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    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

    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 Port Heiden Alaska

    Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    Panama Weighs Another Canal Expansion at Centennial Mark

    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons

    While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Previously Owned U.S. Home Sales Rise to Eight-Month High

    Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    Things You Didn't Know About Your Homeowners Policy

    The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)

    Architecture, Robotics, and the Importance of Human Interaction – An Interview with Prof. Kathrin Dörfler

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

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

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

    High Attendance Predicted for West Coast Casualty Seminar

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate
    Corporate Profile


    Through over four thousand building and construction related expert designations, the Port Heiden, Alaska Construction Expert Directory delivers a superior construction and design expert support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking meaningful resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the industry's leading construction attorneys, Fortune 500 builders, insurers, owners, as well as a variety of public entities. Utilizing in house assets which comprise testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, licensed general and specialty contractors, the firm brings regional experience and local capabilities to Port Heiden and the surrounding areas.

    Port Heiden Alaska construction expert witness consultantPort Heiden Alaska building expertPort Heiden Alaska construction expert testimonyPort Heiden Alaska window expert witnessPort Heiden Alaska expert witness commercial buildingsPort Heiden Alaska slope failure expert witnessPort Heiden Alaska civil engineer expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Port Heiden, Alaska

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    August 31, 2020 —
    In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

    November 16, 2020 —
    All Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.” A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia, Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    October 05, 2020 —
    I’ve discussed the continuing litigation between White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc. previously here at Construction Law Musings because the case was another reminder that your construction contract terms matter and will be interpreted strictly here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The prior opinion in this case from the Eastern District of Virginia court the Court considered the applicability of a liquidated damages provision. In the latest opinion from the Court (PDF) the Court looked at when and how any liquidated damages would be calculated. In its June 22, 2020 opinion, the Court put the issue as follows:
    White Oak’s motion for partial summary judgment presents a narrow issue: whether courts may consider the damages actually sustained by a party as a result of a contract breach when deciding if liquidated damages required by a contract “grossly exceed” a party’s actual damages.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    August 17, 2020 —
    From structural collapses to fires, the construction industry has experienced a number of high-profile catastrophes over the past decade. These disasters test the mettle of even the most experienced risk professionals and the strongest insurance programs. Issues can arise in all facets of the company’s contracts and insurance policies, and dealing with the aftermath is an extensive and demanding process that can involve many players. As overwhelming as the task may seem, however, it is possible for general contractors to get through the disaster with minimal uncovered exposure if proper steps are taken. By understanding some of the exposures a general contractor faces after a catastrophic loss and implementing key risk transfer strategies from the outset of a project, risk professionals can minimize the impact of a loss on the company in the short and long term. Understanding Possible Risk Exposures When a catastrophic loss occurs, contractors face a wide array of potential exposures. Unfortunately, many large catastrophic losses involve serious bodily injuries and even loss of life. If such a tragedy occurs, the general contractor can reasonably expect to be named in a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Depending on the scope of the project and the area associated with the loss, the catastrophe may also prompt a wide range of bystander claims, from dust inhalation to emotional distress. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at

    Employee Screening and Testing in the Covid-19 Era: Getting Back to Work

    August 10, 2020 —
    Currently Available Workplace Protocols for Employers Employers seeking to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace should consider from among the three currently available protocols: Written Questionnaires; Temperature Checks; and Viral or Diagnostic Testing. When implementing a screening or testing protocol, employers should explain the following in writing to employees: (1) the specific screening process or test utilized by the employer; (2) employee compliance expectations and any consequences for a refusal to participate; (3) how employee privacy will be protected; (4) if screening, the general benchmarks that indicate the employee has “passed” (e.g., temperature below 100.4ºF, per CDC guidelines); and (5) the outcome of an unsuccessful screen or test (e.g., being sent home from the workplace). Employers must also ensure that those administering the screening and/or testing are properly trained, and that appropriate written acknowledgements are obtained from employees consenting to the applicable protocol. Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and Shannon D. Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at Ms. Azzaro may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    June 29, 2020 —
    On June 5, 2020, the President signed into law the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, amending portions of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Most importantly, the PPP Flexibility Act adjusted the forgiveness requirements for PPP loans. The CARES Act allowed borrowers to apply for forgiveness of loan amounts used for payroll and other covered costs during an eight-week period beginning on the date of origination, or by June 30, 2020, whichever came first. The CARES Act also allowed borrowers to use the loan funds by June 30 to restore employee and payroll levels that had been reduced as a result of COVID-19. The Small Business Administration instructed borrowers that at least 75% of the loan funds had to be used to cover payroll costs during the covered period to be eligible for forgiveness. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob W. Scott, Smith Currie
    Mr. Scott may be contacted at

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    August 03, 2020 —
    In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at

    California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

    June 08, 2020 —
    On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of