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

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Exponential Acceleration—Interview with Anders Hvid

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Wisconsin Court Applies the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Negligence Claims for Purely Economic Losses

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

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

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

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    Disrupt a Broken Industry—The Industrial Construction Sandbox

    Sean Shecter to Join American University Environmental and Energy Law Alumni Advisory Council

    General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

    Apartment Construction Increasing in Colorado while Condo Construction Remains Slow

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    The Pandemic of Litigation Sure to Follow the Coronavirus

    Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’

    Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

    CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    Red Wings Owner, Needing Hockey-Arena Neighborhood, Builds One

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 4500 engineering, construction, and builders standard of care related expert designations, the Larsen Bay, Alaska Construction Expert Directory provides a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to builders and construction practice groups seeking effective resolution of construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides building related trial support and expert 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 assets which include testifying architects, design engineers, construction cost and standard of care experts, the firm brings regional experience and flexible capabilities to the Larsen Bay construction industry.

    Larsen Bay Alaska expert witness windowsLarsen Bay Alaska construction safety expertLarsen Bay Alaska slope failure expert witnessLarsen Bay Alaska construction defect expert witnessLarsen Bay Alaska reconstruction expert witnessLarsen Bay Alaska eifs expert witnessLarsen Bay Alaska testifying construction expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Larsen Bay, Alaska

    Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

    February 28, 2022 —
    For decades, an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law was determined exclusively by reviewing the insurance contract and the allegations of the complaint under the “eight-corners rule.” All of this changed last week when, in a long-awaited decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the existence of coverage in certain limited situations. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 21-0232, 2022 WL 413940 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). In Monroe, a drilling contractor was sued for damages arising out of the allegedly botched drilling of an irrigation well. The underlying lawsuit alleged that negligent drilling caused damage to surrounding farmland. However, the complaint did not allege when the damage occurred. The contractor’s insurers, BITCO General Insurance Corporation (“Bitco”) and Monroe Guarantee Insurance Company (“Monroe”) disputed whether Monroe owed a duty to defend. Although Bitco agreed to provide a defense, Monroe refused, arguing that the property damage happened before its policy period. Bitco sued Monroe for contribution. In the trial court, the insurers stipulated that a drill bit became stuck before Monroe’s policy incepted, a fact that would have supported Monroe’s “prior damage” defense. On summary judgment, though, the trial court ruled this stipulated fact could not be considered under Texas’ eight-corners rule. Monroe appealed, and the Fifth Circuit, which had previously endorsed an exception to the eight-corners rule under Northfield Insurance Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 2004), certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears, Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Jong may be contacted at Mr. Cazier may be contacted at Mr. Thomas may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    November 19, 2021 —
    On September 14, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a City which operated a park containing a natural bathing spring in Sarasota County, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff went to the park, entered the spring without incident, swam for more than an hour, then exited the spring and was returning to the area where she had stored her belongings when she slipped and fell on mud and grass, sustaining an open angulated fracture of her right tibia and fibula. The Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital where she underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery on her right leg which consisted of implantation of a metal rod into the medullary cavity of her tibia that was secured by two proximal and two distal interlocking screws. She was in the hospital for four days. Upon discharge, the Plaintiff was placed in a walking boot and confined to a wheelchair for several months. The Plaintiff incurred nearly $100,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the City claiming it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Plaintiff also alleged that the City failed to warn her that the area where she had stored her belongings had become saturated and slippery proximately causing her fall and resulting injuries. After the close of discovery, Mr. Guldalian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the City arguing the wet grass and mud upon which the Plaintiff fell and injured herself was a byproduct of patrons going in and out of the water and walking to and from the area where they stored their belongings, was open and obvious, and did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Citing to case law from the Florida Supreme Court which held that it is common knowledge that walks adjacent to, leading to, or surrounding a bathing area generally have water constantly thrown upon them and are in a slippery condition, as well as deposition testimony from the Plaintiff confirming she had been swimming at the spring for the past eighteen plus years and was “very familiar” with the park, the spring, and the area where she normally stored her belongings, Mr. Guldalian argued that some injury-causing conditions, like wet grass and mud surrounding a swimming area, are simply so open and so obvious that they cannot be held, as a matter of law, to give rise to liability as dangerous conditions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at

    Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

    March 06, 2022 —
    A federal jury convicted a former executive at an engineered construction products firm Feb. 1 for his role in a bid-rigging scheme that targeted the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Insurers Can Sue One Another for Defense Costs on Equitable Indemnity and Equitable Contribution Basis

    March 21, 2022 —
    Since I don’t do insurance defense work, fights between insurers isn’t something I have to deal with. It’s good sport nonetheless. In the next case, Travelers v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. D078852 (October 15, 2021), three of the biggies – Travelers, Navigators and Mt. Hawley – got into it over indemnity. The Travelers Case General contractor TF McGukin, Inc. was involved in a construction defect lawsuit with respect to a condominium project. TFM entered into subcontracts with several subcontractors including F&F Steel and Stairway, Inc and Calvac Paving which required the subcontractor to defend and indemnify TFM against any claims arising out of the subcontractor’s work. The subcontracts also required the subcontractors to name TFM as an additional insured. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case

    February 14, 2022 —
    Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals handed down a victory for policyholders when it affirmed a Circuit Court’s order compelling an insurer to produce its underwriting manual in a breach of contract action. In People’s Trust Insurance Co. v. Foster, No. 1D21-845 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 2022), the policyholder, Mr. Foster, filed a breach of contract claim against his insurer, People’s Trust, after People’s Trust failed to pay his insurance claim for damage caused to Mr. Foster’s home due to a leaking water pipe. People’s Trust denied Foster’s claim because “Foster’s pipe damage predated the policy’s inception.” During discovery Foster requested People’s Trusts’ underwriting manual(s) in effect at the time his policy was issued or renewed. People’s Trust objected to the request. In response, Foster filed a motion to compel production of the underwriting manual(s). After a hearing, the Circuit Court granted Foster’s motion and People’s Trust sought a writ of Certiorari from the First District Court of Appeal to quash the order compelling production. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. DeField may be contacted at Ms. Perez may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

    November 29, 2021 —
    A long-running dispute between a landowner and a municipality has escalated to the Georgia Court of Appeals and in the federal court for the Northern District of Georgia.[1] The municipality maintained a stormwater system that discharged on property uphill from the landowner’s property. The uphill property was used as an illegal dump, and debris washed downhill from the dump to the landowner’s property. The debris clogged the landowner’s surface water drainage system, which caused flooding of the property and a building. State Case The landowner sued for trespass, nuisance, takings, and inverse condemnation. While the other claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations, the court addressed the plaintiff-landowner’s claim for continuing nuisance. Municipalities may be liable when they negligently construct or maintain a sewer or drainage system that causes repeated flooding of property, such that it results in a continuing, abatable nuisance.[2] For a municipality to be liable for maintenance of a nuisance:
    the municipality must be chargeable with performing a continuous or regularly repetitious act, or creating a continuous or regularly repetitious condition, which causes the hurt, inconvenience or injury; the municipality must have knowledge or be chargeable with notice of the dangerous condition; and, if the municipality did not perform an act creating the dangerous condition, . . . the failure of the municipality to rectify the dangerous condition must be in violation of a duty to act.[3]
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at

    Turning Back the Clock: DOL Proposes Previous Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Definition

    April 19, 2022 —
    On March 11, 2022, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposed reverting the definition of “prevailing wage” under the Davis-Bacon Act to a definition used over 40 years ago. According to the DOL, the proposal is meant to modernize the law and “reflect better the needs of workers in the construction industry and planned federal construction investments.”[1] Brief History Lesson The Davis-Bacon Act was enacted in 1931 and requires the payment of locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits on federal construction contracts. The law applies to workers on contracts in excess of $2,000 entered into by federal agencies and the District of Columbia for the construction, alteration, or repair of public buildings or public works.[2] From the 1930s to the early 1980s, the DOL used the following three-step process to define prevailing wage:
    1. Any wage rate paid to a majority of workers.
    2. If there was no wage rate paid to a majority of workers, then the wage rate paid to the greatest number of workers, provided it was paid to at least 30 percent of workers (i.e., the “30 percent rule”).
    3. If the 30 percent rule was not met, the weighted average rate.
    Reprinted courtesy of David Chidlaw, Sheppard Mullin and Carina Novell, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Chidlaw may be contacted at Ms. Novell may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

    February 14, 2022 —
    Fights between owners and contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7031 can get nasty and detailed. An owner’s remedy under Section 7031, as courts have stated, can be “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and even “unjust” and damages can be significant. Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 289216 (2022), a case decided this past month, is no different. It even involved a disagreement between the very justices deciding the case. The Panterra GP Case Panterra GP, Inc. was a licensed general contractor. Rosedale Bakersfield Retail VI, LLC and Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC intended to hire Panterra GP to perform renovation work at the Studio Movie Grill in Bakersfield, California, but drafted a construction contract mistakenly listing Panterra Development Ltd., LLP as the contractor on the project. Panterra GP was the general partner of Panterra Development. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at