• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Jakin Georgia low-income housing expert witness Jakin Georgia townhome construction expert witness Jakin Georgia custom homes expert witness Jakin Georgia Medical building expert witness Jakin Georgia structural steel construction expert witness Jakin Georgia condominiums expert witness Jakin Georgia condominium expert witness Jakin Georgia mid-rise construction expert witness Jakin Georgia concrete tilt-up expert witness Jakin Georgia Subterranean parking expert witness Jakin Georgia landscaping construction expert witness Jakin Georgia production housing expert witness Jakin Georgia institutional building expert witness Jakin Georgia housing expert witness Jakin Georgia office building expert witness Jakin Georgia multi family housing expert witness Jakin Georgia tract home expert witness Jakin Georgia parking structure expert witness Jakin Georgia custom home expert witness Jakin Georgia industrial building expert witness Jakin Georgia casino resort expert witness Jakin Georgia
    Jakin Georgia eifs expert witnessJakin Georgia building code expert witnessJakin Georgia structural concrete expertJakin Georgia structural engineering expert witnessesJakin Georgia expert witnesses fenestrationJakin Georgia building code compliance expert witnessJakin Georgia forensic architect
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Jakin, Georgia

    Georgia Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 563 stipulates that prior to filing a claim, a homeowner must give the contractor 30 day written notice detailing the nature of the defect. In response, contractor must provide (within 30 days of receipt) a written reply containing an offer of settlement, requirement of inspection or rejection. The law provides definitions relating to construction; offers immunity from liability for certain conditions; and sets up an alternative dispute resolution process.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Jakin Georgia

    No state license for general contracting required. License is required for Air Conditioning, Electrical, and Plumbing trades.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Golden Isles Home Builders Association
    Local # 1135
    218 Rose Drive
    Brunswick, GA 31520
    Jakin Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of South GA
    Local # 1194
    PO Box 2950
    Valdosta, GA 31603

    Jakin Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Albany & SW GA Inc
    Local # 1108
    PO Box 70424
    Albany, GA 31708

    Jakin Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Savannah
    Local # 1188
    7116 Hodgson Memorial Dr
    Savannah, GA 31406

    Jakin Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Statesboro Home Builders Association
    Local # 1191
    1223 Merchants Way
    Statesboro, GA 30458
    Jakin Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Greater Columbus Home Builders Association
    Local # 1148
    6432 Bradley Park Dr
    Columbus, GA 31904

    Jakin Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association Of Warner Robins
    Local # 1196
    PO Box 8297
    Warner Robins, GA 31095

    Jakin Georgia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Jakin Georgia

    Woman Files Suit for Property Damages

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    House Panel Subpoenas VA Documents on Colorado Project

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

    Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

    Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Builder and County Tussle over Unfinished Homes

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    Virginia General Assembly Helps Construction Contractors

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

    The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

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

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

    A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    Montana Federal Court Holds that an Interior Department’s Federal Advisory Committee Was Improperly Reestablished

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

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

    Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    White Collar Overtime Regulations Temporarily Blocked

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    A Discussion on Home Affordability

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution
    Corporate Profile


    The Jakin, Georgia 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Jakin'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
    Jakin, Georgia

    Singapore Unveils Changes to Make Public Housing More Affordable

    September 23, 2019 —
    Singapore may increase its supply of public housing next year as the city-state introduced measures Tuesday aimed at making such homes more affordable. Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong said the measures would help more Singaporeans from lower to upper-middle income households buy their first homes. The Housing & Development Board, which is the body responsible for public housing, would probably have to increase supply in 2020 to meet the additional demand expected to stem from the changes, according to a joint statement from MND and HDB. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katrina Nicholas & Joyce Koh, Bloomberg

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    August 06, 2019 —
    The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien. The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property. The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at

    Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

    December 16, 2019 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday Musings, we welcome Nick Pacella. Nick is an architect licensed in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. His practice has spanned several economic swings and he has been able to reposition the eggs in his basket to make the most of each recovery. He is currently focusing on adapting existing commercial buildings to take advantage of materials and processes that promote improved energy efficiency for both the owner and the tenants. For a more colorful rendition of projects you can visit his company’s website. I remember as a kid when the attendant at gas stations would not only clean your windows but also check the oil level of your vehicle as it was filling up with $0.25 per gallon gas. (I did say that I have seen several economic swings) These services have mostly disappeared, and to no great effect to your car since most cars go much longer between oil changes. Other than a slightly dirtier windshield it hasn’t affected your ability to drive and maintain your car. This is not so with professional services. Architects used to include many services that are now sourced to others. Project Management, Owner’s Representatives and Program Managers now populate the landscape. In many cases they came to be because architects either did not provide the service their client’s were looking for or they allowed themselves to be put into an adversarial relationship with their clients. They were likened to foxes watching the chicken coop, especially for project management and owners representative services. Client’s have had others buzzing in their ears “are architects really going to look out for my interests above theirs?’” Of course the clients never ask if the new wave will do any better at rallying behind their interests. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    October 21, 2019 —
    On August 14, 2019, Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill authorizing, through C-PACE loans, the financing of clean energy, alternative energy and water conservation projects for eligible commercial properties in Philadelphia. Philadelphia City Council unanimously voted to approve the C-PACE program on June 20, 2019. The program will be administered by the Philadelphia Energy Authority. Third-party capital providers (not the Philadelphia Energy Authority) will originate C-PACE financings for qualified projects. C-PACE “assessments” will encumber the applicable property in a first lien position akin to a real estate tax. Documentation among the property owner, the City of Philadelphia, and the third party capital provider (identified in the ordinance as the “financial institution”) will provide, among other things, that the assessments will be payable and fully amortize over the term of the financing (i.e., 30 years) and will not be accelerated during its term. Importantly, before a C-PACE financing can be originated and the underlying property assessed, notice of the property owner’s desire to secure C-PACE financing under the program must be provided to the holder of a mortgage on the subject property and the holder of the mortgage must provide the property owner and the City of Philadelphia with its written consent. Without the mortgage lender’s consent, the C-PACE financing cannot be consummated. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Davis, White and Williams LLP and William Johnston, White and Williams LLP Mr. Davis may be contacted at Mr. Johnston may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

    October 07, 2019 —
    The court denied Daubert motions for several experts with the exception of Professor Stempel's expert testimony opining that the insurer did not act in bad faith Adell Plastics, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102942 (D. Md. June 19, 2019). A fire demolished several buildings at Adell's facility. Adell was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Mt. Hawley sued Adell, seeking a declaration that it owed no coverage, and requesting recoupment of a substantial advance payment. Adell filed a counterclaim, alleging that Mt. Hawley had breached the policy and had acted with a lack of good faith. Before the court were several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude testimony of eight expert witnesses. The court denied Adell's motion to exclude several experts to be called by Mt. Hawley. The accountant's testimony was relevant. Adell had to prove damages on its breach of contract claim, and the accountant's testimony would aid the jury in evaluating Adell's documentation and calculating documented damages. Mt. Hawley's fire safety expert investigated the Adell fire. Mt. Hawley had shown that his expert opinion would be sufficiently reliable for admissibility. Further, three fire protection engineers offered by Mt. Hawley and two fire protection engineers to be called by Adell were allowed to testify. Each expert based his investigation and conclusions on the standards of fire investigation as set out in the NEPA Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. This was a fire insurance case, and fire protection engineers would be allowed to testify and illuminate the circumstances of the fire. 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

    Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

    October 07, 2019 —
    Last month a California Court of Appeals clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, to be entitled to a trial on the amount of goodwill lost. Yum Yum Donuts operated a shop in Los Angeles that was subject to eminent domain by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to make way for light railway track. At trial, Yum Yum sought loss of goodwill as part of its condemnation damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. At trial the MTA’s expert testified that Yum Yum could have reduced its goodwill loss if it relocated to one of three alternative locations rather than simply closing the shop. But the expert conceded that even if Yum Yum had relocated, it would have lost some goodwill. Yum Yum refused to relocate, arguing that its relocation costs would render the move unprofitable. The trial court found that Yum Yum’s failure to mitigate its damages barred Yum Yum from having a jury trial to recover any goodwill damages. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Josh Cohen, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Cohen may be contacted at

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    September 09, 2019 —
    Premises liability is a relatively simple concept: landowners, lessors, and occupiers of land must keep their property safe and avoid causing harm to others. Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances including a slip and fall by an individual, a construction site accident, or an accident at occurs on a residential or commercial property. Under California law, everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. California Civil Code 1714 (a). When an individual is injured on a property, the person harmed generally brings a lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. Under this theory, an injured Plaintiff must prove the following:
    1. The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
    2. The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
    3. The plaintiff was harmed; and
    4. The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
    California Civil Jury Instructions 1000. When evaluating a negligence claim under the theory of premises liability, there are several key elements for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant to consider. First, the landowner, occupier, or lessor of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use or maintenance of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). Essentially, a landowner or occupier is required to take steps to keep individuals on the property free from harm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

    October 07, 2019 —
    Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:
    At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….
    This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at