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

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

    Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    New England Construction Defect Law Groups to Combine

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Think Twice About Depreciating Repair Costs in Our State, says the Tennessee Supreme Court

    EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Identifying and Accessing Coverage in Complex Construction Claims

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion
    Corporate Profile


    Drawing from more than four thousand building and claims related expert witness designations, the Fort Yukon, Alaska Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to legal professionals and construction practice groups seeking meaningful resolution of construction defect and claims matters. BHA provides construction claims and trial support services to the construction industry's leading builders and developers, legal professionals, and owners, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies. Utilizing in house assets which include construction cost and scheduling experts, registered design professionals, forensic engineers, certified professional estimators, the firm brings regional experience and local capabilities to Fort Yukon and the surrounding areas.

    Fort Yukon Alaska construction defect expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction code expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska architecture expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska expert witness roofingFort Yukon Alaska construction expert witness consultantFort Yukon Alaska roofing and waterproofing expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Fort Yukon, Alaska

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    June 21, 2021 —
    Zetlin & De Chiara was named a Band 1 Construction Law firm in the United States by the Legal 500 US in its annual guide. Described as a "boutique construction law firm with a deep bench and understanding of how a construction project is built and how to address disputes when they happen," Zetlin & De Chiara is routinely involved in projects across the US and internationally. Legal 500 selected Michael Zetlin, Michael De Chiara and Michael Vardaro to the Leading Lawyers list. Michael De Chiara was praised as an "expert in the field." Michael Zetlin was lauded for his representation of national and multi-national construction companies as well as premier owners, developers and contractors. Other members of the "very pragmatic" team who were recognized were Tara Mulrooney and Jim Terry. The Legal 500 US 2021 guide is a highly regarded legal directory which annually ranks law firms and legal professionals. It highlights legal teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporate counsel. Rankings are based on feedback from clients worldwide, submissions from law firms and interviews with leading private practice lawyers. About Zetlin & De Chiara: Zetlin & De Chiara LLP provides sophisticated legal and business counsel and advice to members of the construction community across the country including real estate owners and developers, design professionals, construction managers and contractors, and financial institutions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zetlin & De Chiara LLP

    Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

    October 04, 2021 —
    Faulty structural welds have been blamed for the deadly May 3 collapse of an elevated section of Mexico City’s Line 12 subway, according to a report issued Sept. 7 by Norwegian risk management firm DNV. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    September 13, 2021 —
    In Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine. In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.) However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Forbath may be contacted at

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

    May 03, 2021 —
    Haight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi and associate Catherine Asuncion who were selected to the 2021 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Reprinted courtesy of Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at Mr. Parme may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How to Fix America

    July 11, 2021 —
    In 2011, then-President Barack Obama stood in front of the deteriorating Brent Spence Bridge linking Ohio and Kentucky with a plea to Republican leadership: Pass the jobs bill to rebuild America. (It did not pass.) Six years later, when asked about the same bridge, then-President Donald Trump answered “we’re going to get it fixed.” (It did not get fixed.) It took two trucks colliding on the Brent Spence’s lower deck — leading to a massive fire — just before 3 a.m. on Nov. 11, 2020, for work to begin. A post-crash inspection found the bridge structurally sound, and more than $3 million in repairs were made by year-end. But with traffic volume at around double its intended capacity, much more work is needed to alleviate persistent jams and accidents. Such has been the state of infrastructure in the U.S. for decades — fixes get put off until they’re absolutely necessary, and U.S. airports, roads and public transportation draw frequent comparisons to those in nations with far fewer resources. Meanwhile, countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have leapt ahead with so-called smart cities, high-speed trains and eco-friendly buildings. In 2019, the U.S. ranked 13th in the world in a broad measure of infrastructure quality — down from fifth place in 2002, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

    June 07, 2021 —
    Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here. As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    How to Protect a Construction-Related Invention

    May 10, 2021 —
    They say necessity is mother of invention. That was surely true for Johan Vaaler, who in 1899 decided he was tired of having to sew pages together to keep them organized. Voila, enter the paper clip. This wasn’t the case for Percy Spencer. He was a radar tube designer working at Raytheon who, while working in front of an active radar set, noticed the candy bar in his pocket started to melt. Exploring the phenomenon further, he placed corn kernels in front of the radar and behold, he ended up with the world’s first microwaved popcorn. He patented the microwave oven in 1945. Whether by necessity or by accident, what should contractors do if they develop a unique tool to accomplish some portion of their work faster, easier or less expensively? How do they protect it from misappropriation by competitors, or by an errant employee? We are all familiar with the fact that in today’s internet-driven market, it has become very easy to reverse engineer and knock off an innovative product. The best way to safeguard an invention is, of course, to register it with the appropriate government agency:the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Generally done with the assistance of a patent lawyer, the process is neither inexpensive or abbreviated. It could cost several thousand dollars and take 12 to 18 months. But, more importantly, this is not sufficient. Inventors must regularly monitor their patents to police possible infringers. Many folks think the USPTO does this, but it does not. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Barthet may be contacted at

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    May 24, 2021 —
    On Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions. First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Niczky may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of