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

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

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

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

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Trapper Creek Alaska

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Building in the Age of Technology: Improving Profitability and Jobsite Safety

    “Slow and Steady Doesn’t Always Win the Race” – Applicability of a Statute of Repose on Indemnity/Contribution Claims in New Hampshire

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

    CISA Guidance 3.1: Not Much Change for Construction

    Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    How Your Disgruntled Client Can Turn Into Your Very Own Car Crash! (and How to Avoid It) (Law Tips)

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

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

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

    Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

    Top 10 Cases of 2019

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Construction Industry Survey Says Optimism Hits All-Time High

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    California Contractor Tests the Bounds of Job Order Contracting

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    Haight Expands California Reach – Opens Office in Sacramento

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    Third Circuit Affirms Use of Eminent Domain by Natural Gas Pipeline

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

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

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 4500 general contracting and design related expert designations, the Trapper Creek, Alaska Construction Expert Directory offers a wide range of trial support and construction consulting services to attorneys and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides building 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. Employing in house resources which include licensed architects, registered professional engineers, ASPE certified professional estimators, ICC Certified inspection and testing professionals, the firm brings regional experience and local capabilities to Trapper Creek and the surrounding areas.

    Trapper Creek Alaska construction expertsTrapper Creek Alaska architect expert witnessTrapper Creek Alaska building consultant expertTrapper Creek Alaska engineering consultantTrapper Creek Alaska architecture expert witnessTrapper Creek Alaska consulting general contractorTrapper Creek Alaska OSHA expert witness construction
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Trapper Creek, Alaska

    Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

    March 15, 2021 —
    The Federal Highway Administration has asked Texas to delay issuing requests for proposals and pause ongoing contracting on a $7-billion, three-phased highway expansion project in metropolitan Houston as it evaluates complaints that up to 1,000 homes and multifamily buildings and 350 businesses would be condemned to build the project. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    November 02, 2020 —
    As is always the case here in Virginia, our General Assembly has made some legislative changes that affect construction contracting. One of these changes is an amendment to Va. Code 43-13 found in the mechanic’s lien section of the Virginia Code. This section of the code has always required that any money paid to a contractor must first go toward paying its subcontractors, suppliers and laborers prior to being used for any other purpose. Prior to 2020, the only remedy for violaiton of Va. Code 43-13 was to go to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney and request a prosecution of the wrongdoer. For various reasons, including that such action did not get the subcontractor or supplier that remained unpaid under this section paid, this remedy was not often pursued except in the most egrigious cases. A key change in the statute occurred during the 2020 legislative session states as follows:
    Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project. Any contract or subcontract provision that allows a contracting party to withhold funds due under one contract or subcontract for alleged claims or damages due on another contract or subcontract is void as against public policy.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    You Have Choices (Litigation Versus Mediation)

    December 14, 2020 —
    As I sit here thinking about an impending trial in the Goochland County General District Court, it hit me that I also serve as a mediator in that court from time to time. Coincidentally, I will be “wearing both hats” (litigator and mediator) this week on back to back days. It will be interesting to have to switch roles so quickly on back to back days. While I don’t have the results of this thought experiment as I sit here typing this post, the timeline does bring into focus the two possible avenues to resolve a dispute. Neither is perfect and either works in the proper situation. Both lend a final “result” and closure to the dispute, they just each do so in a different manner and with a different role for me, the construction attorney/construction mediator. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    December 21, 2020 —
    In a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”: If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Korst may be contacted at

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    December 07, 2020 —
    Recently, the California Bar Association (“CBA”) published Formal Opinion No. 2020-203[1] concerning a lawyer’s ethical obligations with respect to unauthorized access to electronically stored client information. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the growing trend of storing and maintaining data and information online so that employees and clients can access the data from anywhere in the world at any time. Now, in today’s working world, the reality is nearly all information and data is stored and shared digitally online for ease of access, use, and dissemination. Unfortunately, a major draw-back of this switch to a cyber paradigm is serious exposure to data breaches as a result of hacking, inadvertence, or theft. Formal Opinion No. 2020-203 outlines how a lawyer is to handle access to client confidential information and anticipation of potential security issues. This article will briefly cover the key aspects addressed in Formal Opinion No. 2020-203. What is the duty owed by a lawyer to his or her client regarding the use of technology? At the outset, the CBA reminds lawyers of the ongoing duty of competence (Rule 1.1) and the duty to safeguard clients’ confidences and secrets (Rule 1.6; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)) which impose the requirement that a lawyer must have a basic understanding of the risks posed when using a given technology and (if necessary) obtain help from appropriate experts to assess those risks and take reasonable steps to prevent data breaches. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

    November 30, 2020 —
    The insurer successfully established on summary judgment that the insureds' alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a condominium was not an occurrence. Novak v. St. Maxent-Wimberly House Condo., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167397 (E.D. La. Sept. 14, 2020). State Farm issued the sellers a condominium unit owner's policy. The buyers sued the sellers, contending the sellers had made misrepresentations in the sale process. The sellers allegedly failed to disclose defects in the condominium before and at the time of the sale. State Farm intervened, seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify the sellers because there was no occurrence. 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

    A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound

    January 25, 2021 —
    Here are some significant environmental and regulatory rulings and administrative actions from December 2020. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Texas v. New Mexico On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a water rights controversy involving sharing the water of the Pecos River. The 1949 Pecos River Compact provides for the equitable apportionment of the use of the Pecos River’s water by New Mexico and Texas, and a “River Master’s Manual,” approved by the Court in 1988, implements the Compact. These are very dry areas, and access to this water is very important. In 2014, a rare tropical storm drenched the Pecos River Basin, and Texas asked New Mexico to temporarily store the water that would otherwise flow into Texas. A few months later, New Mexico released the water to Texas, but the quantity was reduced because some of the water held by New Mexico had evaporated. The River Master awarded a delivery credit to New Mexico, and after Texas objected, Texas “in response” filed the Original Jurisdiction of the Court, suing New Mexico and seeking a review of the River Master’s determination. The Court held for New Mexico, deciding that this dispute was subject to and resolved by the Manual. This case is important because it highlights the high value the states place on the equitable apportionment of water that flows through different states. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

    January 25, 2021 —
    New Jersey’s highest court heard arguments Monday in the appeal of a ruling that the New Jersey Transit Corp.’s (“NJ Transit”) insurers are required to insure $400 million of water damage loss caused by Hurricane Sandy. The matter stems from an insurance claim NJ Transit made after the super storm rocked the East Coast in 2012. NJ Transit claimed over $400 million in losses as a result of damage to its tracks, bridges, tunnels and power stations. In response, its tower of property insurers took the position that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to limit NJ Transit’s recovery under its insurance tower, not the policy’s $400 million overall limits.NJ Transit filed a coverage action in state court. The trial court granted summary judgment to NJ Transit, holding that NJ Transit was entitled to full coverage of $400 million under the tower’s named windstorm coverage. The insurers appealed, again arguing that the flood sublimit applied to the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of