• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Akhiok Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Akhiok Alaska parking structure expert witness Akhiok Alaska custom home expert witness Akhiok Alaska production housing expert witness Akhiok Alaska housing expert witness Akhiok Alaska condominiums expert witness Akhiok Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Akhiok Alaska multi family housing expert witness Akhiok Alaska institutional building expert witness Akhiok Alaska condominium expert witness Akhiok Alaska custom homes expert witness Akhiok Alaska industrial building expert witness Akhiok Alaska hospital construction expert witness Akhiok Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Akhiok Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Akhiok Alaska retail construction expert witness Akhiok Alaska casino resort expert witness Akhiok Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Akhiok Alaska townhome construction expert witness Akhiok Alaska tract home expert witness Akhiok Alaska office building expert witness Akhiok Alaska
    Akhiok Alaska fenestration expert witnessAkhiok Alaska expert witness windowsAkhiok Alaska construction expert witness public projectsAkhiok Alaska roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAkhiok Alaska testifying construction expert witnessAkhiok Alaska concrete expert witnessAkhiok Alaska slope failure expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Akhiok, 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 Akhiok Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Akhiok Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Akhiok Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Akhiok Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Akhiok Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Akhiok Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    Wasilla, AK 99654

    Akhiok Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Akhiok Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Akhiok Alaska

    Mechanic’s Liens and Leases Don’t Often Mix Well

    When Is an Arbitration Clause Unconscionable? Not Often

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

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    Insurance and Your Roof

    Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations

    Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

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

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Preparing Your Business For Internal Transition

    'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level

    The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

    General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    Suing A Payment Bond Surety in Different Venue Than Set Forth in The Subcontract

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed

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

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    How to Defend Stucco Allegations
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Akhiok, Alaska Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Akhiok'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
    Akhiok, Alaska

    Contractors Prepare for a Strong 2021 Despite Unpredictability

    April 05, 2021 —
    A recent IFS study found many construction and engineering companies are reimagining their business models to ensure a secure future, using the pandemic-induced lull in business to prepare themselves to get back to operations on a strong footing. The research shows 70% of businesses have increased or maintained digital transformation spend, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In the infrastructure, engineering and construction sectors the figure is more than 75%. There are many challenges the industry will face in the new year following the unpredictability of 2020, but there are also many opportunities. Despite the uncertainties that lay ahead, here are the few trends predicted to impact the sector 2021 and beyond. Reprinted courtesy of Kenny Ingram, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

    April 26, 2021 —
    Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and its chill on the hospitality industry, ADA-related digital lawsuits increased by approximately 23% in 2020. Many of these lawsuits are filed against hotels. The complaints allege that a hotel’s online reservation system failed to provide enough detail for individuals with disabilities to decide if the hotel meets their accessibility needs. These plaintiffs will often claim that it is insufficient to describe an aspect of a hotel or room as “accessible” because the term is an opinion or conclusion. Plaintiffs argue that a hotel’s reservation system must report specific information, such as the dimensions of space under accessible desks and sinks, the slopes of surfaces, doorway clearance, and numerous other technical requirements under the ADA. Many hotels are fighting back, arguing that the detail provided is sufficient and in compliance with the ADA. So far this year, in February 2021, two judges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson and Judge Cormac Carney, agreed with the defendants, dismissing three cases with prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of Shane Singh, Lewis Brisbois and Grace Mehta, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Singh may be contacted at Ms. Mehta may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crypto and NFTs Could Help People Become Real Estate Tycoons

    June 21, 2021 —
    By using online cryptocurrency technologies like tokens and blockchains, people could participate in real estate transactions that are too unwieldy in the analog world. Soon, these technologies may let anyone with a few thousand dollars play tycoon and buy a part of a condo or iconic building. NFTs, or non-fungible tokens—digital certificates that convey exclusive rights to something—is a new concept being applied to real estate, supporters say they will become standard in the industry. “The NFT operates in many respects exactly like a deed would in real estate transactions,” said Josh Morton, a Real Estate special counsel at Pillsbury. “What a deed ordinarily does is give evidence of ownership to a piece of property.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Josh D. Morton, Pillsbury
    Mr. Morton may be contacted at

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    June 21, 2021 —
    While we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service. In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at

    Christopher Leise Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers 2022 "Lawyer of the Year"

    September 06, 2021 —
    White and Williams is proud to announce that Christopher Leise has been named Best Lawyers® 2022 "Lawyer of the Year" in Cherry Hill, NJ for his work in Litigation - Insurance. Chris focuses his practice on complex insurance and commercial litigation, including the representation of licensed insurance agents and brokers in professional liability claims and agency contract disputes. He also has extensive experience litigating complex insurance coverage, insurance bad faith, RICO and insurance fraud claims, fire damage claims, and ERISA disputes. Chris works with regional and national brokerage firms defending professional liability claims and handling disputes with insurance companies throughout the mid-Atlantic region, as well as with commercial insurance carriers defending allegations of bad faith. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Leise, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Leise may be contacted at

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    June 14, 2021 —
    Strict products liability cases have been the subject of much fluctuation in the Pennsylvania courts over the last few years. Utilizing hope created by the courts in recent strict liability cases, defendants have tried to revive defenses based on meeting industry standards and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania tempered that hope with limitations of how far strict liability defenses can extend. In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 3086 EDA 2019, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 210, an appellate panel of the Superior Court reviewed the lower court’s decision to exclude evidence of industry standards and of the plaintiff’s negligence in a trial that resulted in a $2.5 million verdict for the plaintiff. Upholding the decision of the lower court, the court found that the proffered evidence was within the discretion of the court to exclude. In Sullivan, Michael Sullivan (Sullivan) was working as a union carpenter at a renovation project for a local school. He and his apprentice were installing exterior sheathing to the outdoor walls. In order to install the sheathing, Sullivan had to use a scaffold. He put together a new SRS-72 scaffold manufactured by Werner Company (Werner) that his foreman bought at Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (Lowe’s) and used the scaffold during the course of his work. While on the scaffold, Sullivan fell through and crashed to the ground. He suffered permanent injuries as a result of the incident. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    April 19, 2021 —
    The federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc. On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

    April 19, 2021 —
    The Texas Supreme Court recently published its long-awaited decision in the Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds. In it, the court affirmed its holding in Barbara Technologies, finding that payment of an appraisal award does not absolve an insurer of statutory liability when the insurer accepts a claim but pays only part of the amount it owes within the statutory deadline, and a policy holder can proceed with an action under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act. In 2013, Louis Hinojos made a claim for storm damage to his home. State Farm’s initial inspection resulted in an estimate below the deductible, but Hinojos disagreed and requested a second inspection. At the second inspection, the adjuster identified additional damage resulting in a payment to Hinojos of $1,995.11. Hinojos then sued State Farm – and State Farm invoked appraisal approximately 15 months after suit was filed. The appraisal resulted in State Farm tendering an additional payment of $22,974.75. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that timely payment of an appraisal award precluded prompt payment (or Chapter 542) damages. The trial court granted summary judgment and Hinojos appealed (notably Barbara Technologies had not yet been decided). The Court of Appeals affirmed State Farm’s victory on the basis that “State Farm made a reasonable payment on Hinojos’s claim within the sixty-day statutory limit….” Hinojos petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review. Reprinted courtesy of Allison Griswold, Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Smith, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Griswold may be contacted at Ms. Smith may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of