• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska industrial building expert witness Anchorage Alaska townhome construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska multi family housing expert witness Anchorage Alaska office building expert witness Anchorage Alaska casino resort expert witness Anchorage Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska production housing expert witness Anchorage Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska Medical building expert witness Anchorage Alaska parking structure expert witness Anchorage Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Anchorage Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Anchorage Alaska tract home expert witness Anchorage Alaska hospital construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska housing expert witness Anchorage Alaska condominium expert witness Anchorage Alaska custom homes expert witness Anchorage Alaska institutional building expert witness Anchorage Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska condominiums expert witness Anchorage Alaska retail construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska
    Anchorage Alaska defective construction expertAnchorage Alaska consulting general contractorAnchorage Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationAnchorage Alaska expert witness structural engineerAnchorage Alaska expert witness commercial buildingsAnchorage Alaska structural concrete expertAnchorage Alaska reconstruction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anchorage, 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 Anchorage Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Anchorage Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anchorage Alaska

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Construction Warranties and the Statute of Repose – Southern States Chemical, Inc v. Tampa Tank & Welding Inc.

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee

    "Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

    Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

    California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles

    What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    NJ Condo Construction Defect Case Dismissed over Statute of Limitations

    California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?

    Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    Tips for Contractors Who Want to Help Rebuild After the California Wildfires

    Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

    Trial Victory in San Mateo County!

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    If You Purchase a House at an HOA Lien Foreclosure, Are You Entitled to Excess Sale Proceeds?

    Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    BHA Sponsors 28th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

    Apartment Investors Turn to Suburbs After Crowding Cities
    Corporate Profile


    The Anchorage, Alaska Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Anchorage's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anchorage, Alaska

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    March 30, 2020 —
    Last week, the first lawsuit was filed seeking insurance coverage for business-interruption due to losses caused by COVID-19. The case, Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, ,et al., was filed in Louisiana. A New Orleans restaurant, Oceana Grill," seeks a declaratory judgment that its "all risks" policy issued by Lloyd's covers losses resulting from the closure of its restaurant due to the Governor's order restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans' order closing restaurants. The lawsuit contends that "contamination of the insured premises by the coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces of the establishment." The lawsuit further alleges the policy contains no exclusions for a "viral pandemic." The suit seeks a declaration that "the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises." The obvious dispute will be whether the coronavirus constitutes a "direct physical loss or damage" as required by the policy. 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

    Plaza Construction Negotiating Pay Settlement for Florida Ritz-Carlton Renovation

    August 31, 2020 —
    Lionstone Development, owner of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Miami Beach's South Beach section, began a $90-million renovation in 2017 after damage by Hurricane Irma forced the property's closing. The company reopened the hotel this past January to considerable acclaim in the hospitality industry press. Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Drastic Rebuild Resurrects Graves' Landmark Portland Building

    September 14, 2020 —
    Fifteen minutes into a 105-minute job interview for the $195-million overhaul of the long-troubled Portland Public Service Building in Oregon’s largest city, owner’s rep Mike Day threw a curve ball to the unwitting design-build team of Howard S. Wright Construction Co. and architect DLR Group. Already hard at work solving Day’s first faux crisis scenario—a budget buster that threatened the viability of the makeover of the notoriously dysfunctional landmark—they had to regroup. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus

    April 20, 2020 —
    Earlier this week, a rumor made the rounds that a forthcoming Presidential Executive Order would impose a nationwide mandate that all employees work remotely. While the rumor proved baseless, it raised questions about manufacturers’ abilities to comply with environmental permit obligations in the event of a COVID-19 precipitated operational shutdown due to federal or state mandates or workforce depletion resulting from widespread illness. Previous emergencies offer some insights on what to expect as companies and their counsel assess environmental business risk. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive or modify requirements, issue emergency permits, or expedite permits as needed to respond to disaster and recovery needs. In the end, no new legislation was enacted, because existing emergency powers under environmental statutes proved sufficient to allow for waiver of regulatory requirements or exercise of enforcement discretion. Key provisions include the following:
    • The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) affirmative defense for “upset” conditions. This provision excuses non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations due to factors outside the permittee’s control. Criteria for establishing the defense include: 1) the upset occurred and the permittee can identify the cause, 2) the permitted facility was at the time being properly operated, 3) the permittee submitted notice of the upset (24 hour notice), and 4) the permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 C.F.R. §122.41(d).
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh and Amanda Tharpe Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Mr. William may be contacted at Ms. Amanda may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    April 27, 2020 —
    Seven Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    “Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

    March 30, 2020 —
    COVID-19 has already taken a toll on construction projects across the nation. Construction industry participants, including general contractors, now face risks and challenges that are exceedingly difficult to anticipate and plan for. The spread of this virus has and will continue to create new labor force issues and amplify existing ones. On March 18, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6021, the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” which, contains provisions related to mandatory paid leave for employers with fewer than 500 employees. This legislation and the substantial obligations it imposes apply to the overwhelming number of general contractors in the nation—those with less than 500 full-time employees! The bill mandates up to 80 hours of “emergency paid leave” related to COVID-19, and not just for those who contract the illness. However, contractors with less than 50 employees may seek exemption. Reprinted courtesy of Sidney Lewis, Jones Walker LLP and Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP Mr. Lewis may be contacted at Mr. Glaser may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill

    May 11, 2020 —
    "Data! Data! Data!. . . I can't make bricks without clay." This classic statement from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches takes on a new meaning in the COVID-19 pandemic. With the plans to begin contact tracing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly moving towards the forefront, a valid and important issue presents itself: how do we treat and protect the data we so desperately need to trace, track, and address the pandemic? U.S. Senators Wicker, Thune, Moran, and Blackburn introduced a possible solution to this problem with the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, as announced on April 30, 2020. So what does the Act entail? What information is protected? What action would businesses need to take towards individuals, such as consumers or even employees, in order to comply with this new legislation? WHAT IS THE COVID-19 CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT? The Act is meant to address the concern regarding data collection and privacy due to large companies, like Google and Apple, adjusting the software within their devices to facilitate digital contact tracing. The Act can be broken up into three parts - the treatment of information; the privacy notice requirements; and the transparency requirements. First, the Act prohibits the collection, processing, or transfer of certain categories of data without notice and the affirmative express consent of the individual, in order to:
    • Track the spread of COVID-19,
    • Trace the spread of COVID-19 through contact tracing, or
    • Determine compliance with social distancing guidelines without the requisite notice to individuals and their express consent.
    To accomplish this, the Act also restricts entities in their ability to collect excessive information, stating that an entity cannot collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary to conduct any of the three COVID-19 related purposes listed in the statute. The entity must also provide reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security policies and practices to protect the information collected. Furthermore, in the event that the entity stops using the information for any of the three COVID-19 purposes, it must delete or de-identify the information it has collected. Next, the Act describes the requirements for notice to individuals. In order to legally collect, process or transfer the information, the entity needs to provide the consumer with prior notice of the purpose, processing, and transfer of the data through their privacy policy within 14 days of the enactment of the law. This policy would have to:
    • Disclose the consumer's rights in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to or at the point of collection,
    • Be available in a clear and conspicuous manner to the public,
    • Include whether the entity will transfer any of the information it collects in order to track or trace COVID-19 or determine compliance with social distancing,
    • Describe its data retention policy, and
    • Generally describe its data security measures.
    Notably, many of these are already requirements common to many privacy policies, including the disclosure regarding the transfer of an individual's information. In addition, an individual must give their affirmative express consent to such collection, processing and transfer. In other words, an individual must "opt-in" to having their information collected. This would be done through a checked box or electronic signature, as the law prohibits entities from inferring consent through a failure by the individual to take an action stopping the collection. Furthermore, the individual would also need the ability to expressly withdraw their consent, with the entity then having to cease collection, processing, or transfer of the information within 14 days of the revocation. In essence, due to the restriction on transferal, this may result in businesses opting to delete or de-identify data upon a revocation. Finally, the entity would have to abide by certain reporting and transparency requirements, namely a monthly public report stating how many individuals had information collected, processed or transferred, and describing the categories of the data collected, processed or transferred by the entity and why. This is akin to the California Consumer Privacy Act's treatment of categories of information, though it would require this information to be released on an ongoing, monthly basis. WHAT DATA IS COVERED? Notably, the Act only affects a very limited scope of data. The Act covers geolocation data (exact real-time locations), proximity data (approximated location data), and Personal Health Information (any genetic/diagnosis information that can identify someone). This could cover information like Bluetooth communication or real-time tracking based on a cell phone's geolocation features. Notably, Personal Health Information does not include any information that may be covered under HIPAA or the broader categorization of "Biometric" data (i.e. retinal scans, finger prints, etc). Furthermore, and more generally, "publicly available information" is excluded, which includes information from telephone books or online directories, the news media, "video, internet, or audio content" as well as "websites available to the general public on an unrestricted basis." The latter of which potentially would push any and all information made available through social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) into the definition of "publicly available information." HOW IS IT ENFORCED? Generally, the law would be enforced by the FTC, under the provisions regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, similar to other enforcement actions arising out of privacy policies. Notwithstanding, state attorney generals may also bring actions to enforce compliance and obtain damages, civil penalties, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of the state. WHAT SHOULD MY COMPANY DO? If your entity plans on collecting information for tracking COVID-19, measuring social distancing compliance, or contact tracing, it is advisable to include language in your privacy policy now. This could be as simple as adding an additional provision within your privacy policy stating that the entity will retain information to conduct one of the three COVID-19 purposes as laid out in the statute. In addition, this also means that should the entity collect and use employee information for contact tracing, tracking the spread of COVID-19 or ensuring compliance with social distancing measures, it will need to disclose some of the specifics of that process to the employees and have them opt-in for the process. Finally, for contact tracing purposes, any individual that shares their diagnosis will have to opt-in for the entity to legally collect, process, and transfer that information to others. While the time to reach compliance is unknown, it is more important than ever to form a compliance plan for privacy legislation if you do not already have a plan in place. If you decide to prepare with us, our firm has created a 90 day California Consumer Privacy Act compliance program (which can be expedited) where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, and we will provide a free initial consultation. For further inquiries or questions related to COVID-19, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000. Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    June 01, 2020 —
    Having an end date for risk is important to construction professionals who need to know when they can close their books and destroy files relating to old projects. While professionals typically look to the statute of limitations and repose, these deadlines can sometimes be harder to determine than one might think. State Laws Prohibiting Alteration of Statutes of Limitation Many contractors seek to control the extent of their risk by negotiating the length of their liability period. In some instances, contractors may seek to shorten the statute of limitations to protect against stale claims. While in other instances, owners periodically negotiate for longer periods to ensure that they will not be time barred from pursuing valid claims. While the majority of states enforce such contractual provision, a number of states hold such clauses unenforceable. In these instances, the state’s original statute of limitations will apply regardless of what the contract says. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at Mr. Fennessy may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of