• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Anvik Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Anvik Alaska hospital construction expert witness Anvik Alaska office building expert witness Anvik Alaska tract home expert witness Anvik Alaska housing expert witness Anvik Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Anvik Alaska condominiums expert witness Anvik Alaska Medical building expert witness Anvik Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Anvik Alaska multi family housing expert witness Anvik Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Anvik Alaska custom homes expert witness Anvik Alaska casino resort expert witness Anvik Alaska townhome construction expert witness Anvik Alaska custom home expert witness Anvik Alaska parking structure expert witness Anvik Alaska condominium expert witness Anvik Alaska institutional building expert witness Anvik Alaska low-income housing expert witness Anvik Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Anvik Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Anvik Alaska
    Anvik Alaska construction forensic expert witnessAnvik Alaska construction expert witnessAnvik Alaska construction defect expert witnessAnvik Alaska civil engineer expert witnessAnvik Alaska soil failure expert witnessAnvik Alaska delay claim expert witnessAnvik Alaska building envelope expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anvik, 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 Anvik 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

    Anvik Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anvik Alaska

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

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    Seattle Crane Strike Heads Into Labor Day Weekend After Some Contractors Sign Agreements

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    First Trump Agenda Nuggets Hit Construction

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

    Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

    Washington State May Allow Common Negligence Claims against Construction Professionals

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    Loss Ensuing from Alleged Faulty Workmanship is Covered

    Architect Named Grand Custom Home Winner for Triangular Design

    Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code

    Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

    Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

    Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants
    Corporate Profile


    The Anvik, 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 Anvik'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
    Anvik, Alaska

    Green Construction Trends Contractors Can Expect in 2019

    May 01, 2019 —
    The construction industry has come a long way since it was started building homes out of logs and sticks. Modern homes and buildings are marvels of engineering filled with wood, concrete and steel—much of which could be recycled if the building were ever torn down. Green construction is a growing field that will continue to expand in the coming year. What green construction trends can we expect to see in the coming year? Augmented and Virtual Reality Augmented reality (AR) is growing more popular every year for games and entertainment, but it also has some applications in green construction. AR and virtual reality (VR) programs, either through a headset or on a smartphone, can be used to improve collaboration between companies, allowing each company to see a virtual overlay of their stage of the project. For green and eco-friendly construction, it can be used to show how a finished product will look on undeveloped land, making it easier to judge the ecological impact of the project. The use of AR and VR in green construction is still in its infancy, though we will likely start to see more of it in 2019. Reprinted courtesy of Emily Folk, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    February 18, 2019 —
    Wilke Fleury celebrates the addition of two new partners – Shannon Smith-Crowley and Daniel J. Foster – who complement the firm’s shifting generations of leadership. Shannon and Danny bring unique perspective and excellent capability to Wilke Fleury’s partnership effective January 1, 2019. Shannon has been a registered lobbyist in California for 20 years. After a career in managed care, she started lobbying with the California Medical Association before founding her own firm, Partners In Advocacy to specialize in medical and reproductive health advocacy. At Wilke Fleury, her areas of practice include health care, women’s equity, life sciences, the biomedical industry, new family formation and emerging technologies in green energy. After a four year tenure with the firm, she has been elevated to the partnership. Click here to read more about Shannon Smith-Crowley. Daniel Foster’s litigation practice is composed of matters involving complex construction defect litigation, mechanics liens claims, stop notice actions and Miller Act claims. He represents clients before the Contractors State License Board and handles matters involving breach of warranty, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, indemnity agreements and liability insurance coverage. Click here to read more about Daniel J. Foster Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    May 01, 2019 —
    Sometimes you can see a train wreck coming a mile away. The next case, Design Built Systems v. Sorokine, Court of Appeal for the First District, Case Nos. A151264 and A152059 (February 26, 2019), is one of those cases. It also happens to read like a Tolstoy novel. The Beginning of the Train Wreck Alexei Sorokine and Elena Koudriavtseva, husband and wife, owned a single family home in San Rafael, California. Sorokine had acquired the house prior to his marriage to Koudriavtseva. In 2010, he traveled to Russia and, for reasons unexplained, has not been able to return. Following a landslide on the property in 2006, Sorokine entered into a construction contract with Design Built Systems to design and build a series of retaining walls. DBS was also retained to remedy a stop work notice issued by the City of San Rafael following work performed by others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    July 01, 2019 —
    The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at

    Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

    May 13, 2019 —
    The United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes. The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at Mr. Jervis may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    May 27, 2019 —
    The Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims. In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’ Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Fehling may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    April 22, 2019 —
    As a lawyer that has spent his career defending against construction defect claims, one of the most common questions I get when counseling clients regarding risk management is: “What are the most commonly claimed issues in construction defect litigation?” Until very recently, my answer to this question has been based on my own experience and knowledge on the subject, and only vaguely reliant on empirical data. Recently, two engineers, Elizabeth Brogan and William McConnell, along with Caroline Clevenger, an associate professor at the University of Colorado, Denver, wrote a paper entitled “Emerging Patterns in Construction Defect Litigation: A Survey of Construction Cases.” The authors analyzed 41 multifamily construction defect cases litigated in 2015, 2016 and 2017, mostly in the Denver metro area. The authors classified the 55 most prevalent alleged defects into the following categories: structural issues; civil issues; building envelope issues; roof issues; deck, balcony and porch issues; fire protection issues; and miscellaneous issues. The authors then identified the 10 most commonly claimed construction defects, which occurred in over half of all of the cases analyzed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at

    Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

    May 20, 2019 —
    Leading edge hazards are often misunderstood and overlooked on today’s highly visible jobsites. Evidence is readily available via images shared on construction-related social media accounts. In the context of people showing pride for the hard work they do or the extreme conditions under which they work, posts offer glimpses into the methods employed to mitigate fall hazards. Alarmingly, many of these methods do not adhere to industry-accepted standards, especially in the case of leading edge applications. Mincing Words The definition of “leading edge” itself has undergone somewhat of a transformation since its introduction by OSHA to its current use by ANSI in the Z359.14-2014 “Safety Requirements for Self-Retracting Devices for Personal Fall Arrest and Rescue Systems” standard. OSHA defines a leading edge as an “unprotected side or edge during periods when it is actively or continuously under construction,” giving many the impression that a leading edge was a temporary condition found only during the construction of a structure. Reprinted courtesy of Baxter Byrd, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Byrd may be contacted at