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

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    Hiring Subcontractors with Workers Compensation Insurance

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Only Two Weeks Until BHA’s Texas MCLE Seminar in San Antonio

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

    Las Vegas Student Housing Developer Will Name Replacement Contractor

    Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    "Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)

    The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule

    Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    Avoiding Disaster Due to Improper Licensing

    Slowing Home Sales Show U.S. Market Lacks Momentum: Economy

    Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

    U.S. State Adoption of the National Electrical Code

    Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

    Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous
    Corporate Profile


    With over 4500 construction related expert witness designations, the Shaktoolik, Alaska Construction Expert Directory delivers a wide range of trial support and consulting services to builders, risk managers, and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay claims. BHA provides construction related trial support and expert consulting 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, the construction experts group brings national experience and local capabilities to Shaktoolik and the surrounding areas.

    Shaktoolik Alaska contractor expert witnessShaktoolik Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessShaktoolik Alaska expert witness commercial buildingsShaktoolik Alaska building envelope expert witnessShaktoolik Alaska slope failure expert witnessShaktoolik Alaska fenestration expert witnessShaktoolik Alaska construction safety expert
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Shaktoolik, Alaska

    Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

    December 07, 2020 —
    In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at Mr. Levine may be contacted at Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

    December 21, 2020 —
    In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use. In D’Allesandro, the action arose out of the construction, marketing, sale and management of the Hewitts Landing Condominium (the Condominium) project. Ultimately, 150 units were constructed over 24 phases of construction, enclosed in 28 different buildings. Throughout construction, the project’s architect submitted declarations to the Town of Hingham swearing that the individual units were “substantially complete” and could be occupied for their intended use. The Town of Hingham then issued certificates of occupancy for the unit or building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at

    COVID-19 Response: Executive Order 13999: Enhancement of COVID-19-Related Workplace Safety Requirements

    March 08, 2021 —
    President Biden has signed 28 Executive Orders as of February 2, 2021. While this is a large number of Executive Orders compared to the historical record, most call for creating task forces and directing agencies to explore policy changes. However, there is one that stands out to employment lawyers – Executive Order 13999 (Order). Titled “Protecting Worker Health and Safety,” the Order addresses workplace safety. It sets out instructions, primarily to the Secretary of Labor and Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, for establishing and issuing a set of guidelines under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Pursuant to the Order, the Secretary of Labor will issue revised guidance to employers on workplace safety concerning COVID-19, determine if emergency workplace standards are required, and improve overall OSHA shortcomings related to COVID-19 workplace protections and enforcement. Enforcement will include the use of anti-retaliation principles concerning employees reporting unsafe conditions in the workplace. OSHA has issued initial guidance based on the Order. Reprinted courtesy of Alan Rupe, Lewis Brisbois and Luis Mendoza, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rupe may be contacted at Mr. Mendoza may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    November 09, 2020 —
    The ballot initiative, Proposition 24, has been passed by voters in yesterday’s election. What does this proposition entail and how does it impact the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)? What’s Covered in Proposition 24 - The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) The CPRA, among other things, does the following:
    • Revises the existing CCPA to expand consumer rights with respect to personal information and sensitive personal information;
    • Creates a new agency responsible for enforcing the CPRA; and
    • Increases penalties for violations related to the personal information of children under the age of 16.
    As for additional consumer rights, the CPRA offers consumers the opportunity to request a correction of inaccurate personal information. In addition, a consumer may direct a company to “limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information” to a use that an average customer would expect. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    November 23, 2020 —
    Teaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement. The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

    February 08, 2021 —
    On January 20, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (Ventura), in Plascencia v. Deese (B299142), vacated a $30 million non-economic damages award in a highway fatality case because: (1) the award did not properly apportion non-economic damages among everyone at fault in violation of Proposition 51; and (2) the amount of the award appeared to have been influenced by plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct and prejudicial remarks during closing argument. In Plascencia, the plaintiffs sued several defendants for the wrongful death of their daughter arising from a highway fatality accident. All the defendants settled or were dismissed before trial except the trucking defendants. The highway fatality was caused when one defendant driver made an illegal U-turn on a highway as she left another defendant’s fruit stand. The plaintiffs’ daughter swerved to avoid the U-turn driver, lost control of her car, and crashed into the back of the trucking defendants’ diesel tractor-trailer. The truck driver had parked the truck on the side of the highway near the fruit stand, which the trucking defendants’ expert conceded fell below the standard of care. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Peter A. Dubrawski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Keeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing Act

    November 30, 2020 —
    Most contractors would jump at the chance to have a roof overhead during a major rebuild. But for the team turning earthquake-prone Seattle’s 411,000-sq-ft KeyArena into the 932,000-sq-ft Climate Pledge Arena, the city-owned facility’s historic helmet has been a 44-million-lb design and construction headache. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    December 21, 2020 —
    A general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract. In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at