• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home expert witness Shageluk Alaska housing expert witness Shageluk Alaska custom homes expert witness Shageluk Alaska multi family housing expert witness Shageluk Alaska condominium expert witness Shageluk Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Shageluk Alaska Medical building expert witness Shageluk Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Shageluk Alaska hospital construction expert witness Shageluk Alaska industrial building expert witness Shageluk Alaska townhome construction expert witness Shageluk Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Shageluk Alaska condominiums expert witness Shageluk Alaska tract home expert witness Shageluk Alaska casino resort expert witness Shageluk Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Shageluk Alaska retail construction expert witness Shageluk Alaska low-income housing expert witness Shageluk Alaska production housing expert witness Shageluk Alaska office building expert witness Shageluk Alaska institutional building expert witness Shageluk Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Shageluk Alaska
    Shageluk Alaska eifs expert witnessShageluk Alaska construction claims expert witnessShageluk Alaska consulting general contractorShageluk Alaska construction safety expertShageluk Alaska construction project management expert witnessesShageluk Alaska forensic architectShageluk Alaska hospital construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Shageluk, 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 Shageluk 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

    Shageluk Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Shageluk Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Anchorage
    Local # 0215
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Shageluk Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Shageluk Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Shageluk Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Shageluk Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Shageluk Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Shageluk Alaska

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship

    What is a Civil Dispute?

    Remodel Leads to Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    Landowners Try to Choke Off Casino's Water With 19th-Century Lawsuit

    Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

    OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

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

    Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    Bill Introduced to give Colorado Shortest Statute of Repose in U.S.

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Housing Bill Threatened by Rift on Help for Disadvantaged

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape

    French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing

    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    Touchdown! – The Construction Industry’s Winning Audible to the COVID Blitz

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    Texas School System Goes to Court over Construction Defect

    The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons

    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

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

    Court Says No to Additional Lawyer in Las Vegas Fraud Case

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Colorado’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the Construction Industry

    Expert's Opinions On Causation Leads Way To Summary Judgment For Insurer
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Shageluk, Alaska Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Shageluk's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Shageluk, Alaska

    Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

    January 17, 2022 —
    The newest version of the Cal/OSHA ETS goes into effect today, Jan. 14, 2022, and will expire on April 15, 2022. A redline of the recently expired Cal/OSHA ETS and the newest Cal/OSHA ETS is available HERE. The newest Cal/OSHA ETS, which was drafted prior to Dec. 16, 2021, is already partially out-of-date based on the California Department of Public Heath’s Guidance For the Use of Masks (released Jan. 5, 2022) and the CDPH’s Guidance for Local Health Jurisdictions on Isolation and Quarantine of the General Public (released Jan. 8, 2022); these changes have been addressed in the Cal/OSHA ETS FAQs. With all of these changes occurring (not to mention all of the litigation surrounding the now-stayed federal OSHA ETS), California employers are asking: How do I comply with the current Cal/OSHA ETS and the updated CDPH Guidance? Here are the key points to ensure you are in compliance:
    1. New Shorter Isolation and Quarantine Periods
    2. Isolation: When an employee has COVID-19 (even without symptoms).
      • Day 0: First day of symptoms or the day a positive test specimen was collected. Begin isolation.
      • Day 1: First full day after symptoms developed or positive test specimen was collected.
      • Day 5: Recommended day to take COVID-19 test.
    Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears, Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at Mr. Lewis may be contacted at Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property

    April 19, 2022 —
    In law school, one of the first legal doctrines we learn is known as the “statute of frauds.” The statute of frauds is essentially a defense to a contract enforcement action claiming the contract is unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. In other words, this doctrine is raised when one party seeks to enforce a contract. The other party argues, “not so fast,” because the contract is NOT enforceable in light of the statute of frauds. Common scenarios where the statute of frauds comes into play are with transactions involving real property or agreements where services are not to be performed within one year. The statue of frauds doctrine is contained in Florida Statute s. 725.01:
    No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized.
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Quick Note: Can a Party Disclaim Liability in their Contract to Fraud?

    April 11, 2022 —
    It is possible for a party to contractually disclaim or otherwise foreclose liability to a fraud claim. However, let’s be honest. It can be done, but rarely is and would require very specific language to EXPLICITLY disclaim or foreclose such liability to a fraud claim. A recent case, discussed here, exemplifies this point where as-is language in a purchase-and-sale agreement was NOT specific to contractually foreclose or disclaim liability to a fraud claim. For a party to contractually waive a fraud claim, there needs to be an express waiver of liability for fraud that might have been made and that any fraudulent misrepresentation, if such fraud was committed, was disclaimed and would not destroy the validity of the parties’ contract. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

    May 23, 2022 —
    The Mississippi Supreme Court found the pollution exclusion ambiguous under the facts presented. Omega Protein, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2022 Miss. LEXIS 90 (Miss. March 31, 2022). Omega Protein, Inc., entered a contract with Ascu-fab to perform welding and other fabrication work at their facility. Accu-fab was required to have CGL coverage naming Omega as an additional insured. Accu-fab purchased a $1 million primer policy from Colony Insurance Company and a $5 million excess policy issued by Evanston Insurance Company. Accu-fab performed welding and other fabrication work on a large metal storage tank used for the temporary storage of stickwater, which was a liquid composed of water, fish oil, and fish solids. An explosion occurred at the Omega plant while Accu-fab workers were welding and grinding on a large metal tank that was used for the temporary storage of stickwater. One of Accu-fab's workers , Jerry Lee Tayler, was killed, another was seriously injured, and still others suffered less serous injuries. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    May 23, 2022 —
    Partner Vik Nagpal and Associate Attorney Tim McNulty of the Encinitas office recently obtained a substantial victory on behalf of BWB&O’s client after a 10-day binding construction arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel of the American Arbitration Association. BWB&O’s client was sued by the Owner of a commercial office building related to a multimillion-dollar tenant improvement project in San Diego. The Owner asserted construction defect damages, delay damages, architectural negligence, fraudulent billing practices and consequential damages of $3.6 million dollars. BWB&O’s client claimed breach of contract damages against the owner for failure to pay invoices. The Owner who had substantial financial resources and a personal spite against the general contractor, unreasonably pursued the case with an extensive team of lawyers and experts. At an earlier full-day mediation, the owner rejected a reasonable settlement offer which included a settlement payment to the Owner and the client’s agreement to dismiss their affirmative claim for damages. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers

    March 28, 2022 —
    The Connecticut Supreme Court determined that an appraisal panel could resolve whether the insurer must replace undamaged materials so that they match the damaged materials. Klass v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 Conn. LEXIS 2 (Conn. Jan. 11, 2022). The insured reported damage to the roof of his home to Liberty Mutual. A representative from Liberty Mutual inspected and noticed a few shingles missing from the rear slope of the roof. The representative agreed that the damage was caused by wind damage, a covered loss under the policy. Liberty Mutual accepted coverage and issued an estimate to replace the rear slope of the roof. The insured's contractor inspected the roof and provided an estimate that contemplated replacement of the entire roof at nearly double the cost of Liberty Mutual's estimate. The insured requested an appraisal. Liberty Mutual responded that the insured could not invoke the appraisal process in the absence of a "competing" estimate (i.e., one that addressed the claim for which coverage was accepted). Any dispute regarding the matching of the front and rear roof slope was a question of coverage, not an issue for appraisal. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    ASCE Statement On House Passage Of The Precip Act

    May 16, 2022 —
    Washington, DC. – ASCE congratulates the U.S. House of Representatives on passage of the PRECIP Act, H.R. 1437 which requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to update precipitation frequency estimates every five years, and encourages its swift passage in the Senate. To build for the future and prioritize the resilience of our nation's critical infrastructure systems, civil engineers require the most current precipitation data available. Unfortunately, too often the rainfall data that engineers must rely on to design our nation's infrastructure is out-of-date and does not account for the increasingly heavy rains and less predictable weather patterns of today. The lack of current data poses significant challenges for engineers as they attempt to protect public health, safety and welfare and impacts the security of the nation's dams, levees, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Design and protection of all infrastructure systems depend on current, accurate and reliable precipitation data that adequately accounts for ongoing climate changes. The PRECIP Act provides needed resources to help NOAA produce more accurate data and serves to strengthen the nation's infrastructure so that it can withstand the increasingly severe effects of climate change. Passage of this legislation is a critically vital step toward meeting the goals set forth in the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to ensure resilient infrastructure so that every community can thrive. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit or and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Title Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    February 01, 2022 —
    In a rare title insurance dispute before the federal district court in Hawaii, the court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment while granting the insured's motion for summary judgment. First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. GS Industries, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240601 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2021). GS Industries, LLC took ownership of a parcel of real property located fronting Waipa Lane in Honolulu. The property used four buildings and a parking area for 50 cars. GS obtained a title insurance policy from First American. The policy insured GS' fee simple interest in the property in the amount of $3,500,000. The policy insured GS "against loss or damage, not exceeding $3,500,000, sustained or incurred by GS by reason of . . . not right of access to and from the land,." The policy did not identify any issues with access to the property and did not define "access." A portion of Waipa Lane was owned by the City and County of Honolulu. Parcel 86 and Parcel 91 on Waipa Lane were privately owned. (Private Waipa Lane Parcels). Vehicular access to (ingress) and from (egress) the property was via Waipa Lane. Ingress was made via the publicly owned portion of Waipa Lane. Vehicular egress was made via the Private Waipa Lane Parcels. The City of Honolulu maintained the Private Waipa Lane Parcels and considered them to be pubic. None of the owners of Parcels 86 or 91 notified GS of their intent to block the use of Waipa Lane. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at