• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Klawock Alaska parking structure expert witness Klawock Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Klawock Alaska retail construction expert witness Klawock Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Klawock Alaska casino resort expert witness Klawock Alaska custom homes expert witness Klawock Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Klawock Alaska tract home expert witness Klawock Alaska industrial building expert witness Klawock Alaska condominiums expert witness Klawock Alaska institutional building expert witness Klawock Alaska office building expert witness Klawock Alaska Medical building expert witness Klawock Alaska custom home expert witness Klawock Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Klawock Alaska townhome construction expert witness Klawock Alaska hospital construction expert witness Klawock Alaska housing expert witness Klawock Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Klawock Alaska multi family housing expert witness Klawock Alaska low-income housing expert witness Klawock Alaska
    Klawock Alaska consulting engineersKlawock Alaska construction safety expertKlawock Alaska construction expert testimonyKlawock Alaska structural concrete expertKlawock Alaska architectural expert witnessKlawock Alaska consulting general contractorKlawock Alaska reconstruction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Klawock, 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 Klawock 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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Klawock Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Klawock Alaska

    Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans

    The Simple Reason Millennials Aren't Moving Out Of Their Parents' Homes: They're Crushed By Debt

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

    Fixing That Mistake

    Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Hundreds of Coronavirus Coverage Cases Await Determination on Consolidation

    Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

    The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Wilke Fleury Secures Bid Protest Denial

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    Corps Proposes $4.6B Plan to Steel Miami for Storm Surge

    Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Ex-Turner Exec Gets 46 Months for Bloomberg Construction Bribes

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

    World’s Biggest Crane Lifts Huge Steel Ring at U.K. Nuclear Site

    Breaking The Ice: A Policyholder's Guide to Insurance Coverage for Texas Winter Storm Uri Claims

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

    My Top 5 Innovations for Greater Efficiency, Sustainability & Quality

    Five Frequently Overlooked Points of Construction Contracts

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Congratulations to Partner John O’Meara for Being Named as One of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators for Three Consecutive Years!

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear
    Corporate Profile


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

    Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

    October 04, 2021 —
    Faulty structural welds have been blamed for the deadly May 3 collapse of an elevated section of Mexico City’s Line 12 subway, according to a report issued Sept. 7 by Norwegian risk management firm DNV. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story...

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    August 30, 2021 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at

    Congratulations to Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin on Their Recognition as 2021 Nevada Legal Elites!

    June 07, 2021 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Reno Partners Karen Baytosh and August Hotchkin have been recognized in the Nevada Business Magazine as Nevada Legal Elites, Northern Nevada Top Attorneys. To view the Silver State’s Top Attorneys, please click here. The Nevada Legal Elite list includes the top 4 percent of attorneys in the state and is broken down by location. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story...

    Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices

    November 08, 2021 —
    Providing written notice of delay to subcontractors when a project is behind schedule is a regular part of good project documentation practices. A properly targeted delay notice is an important, project correspondence that is an appropriate response to a subcontractor’s specific delay or ongoing delays. However, when a project falls behind schedule and the project management team is in the fog of war, it could seem like a good idea to start firing off project delay notices to any and every subcontractor. While these delay notices may provide a short term burst of productivity, you could find that those same notices are aimed back at you in a future litigation. This article identifies two potential unintended consequences of sending delay notices that a contractor should keep in its sights and then provides recommendations for properly calibrating future delay notices in light of these potential consequences. Acceleration: You Might Get What You Ask For A delay notice to a subcontractor could be interpreted as—or expressly state—direction to the subcontractor to accelerate its work. When a subcontractor is directed to accelerate its work, it may incur additional costs for premium, extended, or overtime labor, additional crews, increased supervision costs, increased overhead costs, and losses due to productivity impacts from the acceleration (e.g., stacking of trades and fatigue). A subcontractor may be entitled to recover these increased costs that are caused by a direction to accelerate. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Sands may be contacted at

    Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

    June 28, 2021 —
    Termination for convenience provisions are important provisions to include in construction contracts. These are provisions that allow a party to terminate the contract for ANY REASON. No cause is needed to exercise the termination for convenience provision. In other words, the terminating party does not have to demonstrate the other party breached the contract. A termination for convenience can be exercised “just because.” Typically, the party providing the service should not get to terminate for convenience. However, the party receiving the service will want to be afforded this contractual right. For example, an owner (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision with its prime contractor (providing a service). And, a general contractor (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision in its subcontract with its subcontractor (providing a service). However, a general contractor providing a service for an owner, or a subcontractor providing a service to a general contractor, should not be able to terminate the contract for their convenience “just because” a better opportunity comes along. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures

    November 15, 2021 —
    Washington, D.C. (October 15, 2021) - The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has requested comments, by November 22, 2021, on proposed revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposal is Phase I in a two-phased approach that will eventually undo a final rule, effective September 2020, that updated NEPA regulations to reflect decades of agency experience and caselaw interpreting the 1969 Act. Phase I proposes to reinstitute 1978 definitions for key terms used to determine the scope of review and the range of alternatives required when undertaking any major federal action. Phase II is expected to be an extensive rewrite of the 2020 regulations to incorporate climate change and environmental justice objectives. Businesses with projects, now or in the future, that require federal authorizations will need to pay close attention to these regulatory revisions. The 2020 update rule intended to scale back the time and cost of producing NEPA analyses by focusing agency resources on evaluating effects that are within the agency’s ability to control and studying only those alternatives that would meet the project purpose. CEQ’s proposal eliminates these efficiencies. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Bennett may be contacted at

    Difficult Task for Court to Analyze Delay and Disorder on Construction Project

    August 23, 2021 —
    One of my favorites quotes from a case, and I am sure others in the construction industry feel the same way or can relate, is from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Blake Construction Co., Inc. v. C.J. Coakley Co., Inc., 431 A.2d 569, 575 (D.C. 1981):
    We note parenthetically and at the outset that, except in the middle of a battlefield, nowhere must men coordinate the movement of other men and all materials in the midst of such chaos and with such limited certainty of present facts and future occurrences as in a huge construction project such as the building of this 100 million dollar hospital. Even the most painstaking planning frequently turns out to be mere conjecture and accommodation to changes must necessarily be of the rough, quick and ad hoc sort, analogous to ever-changing commands on the battlefield. Further, it is a difficult task for a court to be able to examine testimony and evidence in the quiet of a courtroom several years later concerning such confusion and then extract from them a determination of precisely when the disorder and constant readjustment, which is to be expected by any subcontractor on a job site, become so extreme, so debilitating and so unreasonable as to constitute a breach of contract between a contractor and a subcontractor.
    Do you agree with this sentiment? The reality is that retrospectively analyzing delay on a complicated construction project with numerous moving parts on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, basis is no easy feat. It is not easy for the parties and certainly not easy for courts to unravel. With every party claiming delay based on a retrospective analysis there will be another party with either a different delay analysis or providing credible cross examination as to flaws with the delay analysis. The same bodes true with loss of productivity / inefficiency claims and the particular case-specific facts are important, preferably with evidence such as photos, videos, notifications, daily reports, manpower reports, etc., supporting the facts. But the facts are complicated, and the delay analysis is complicated, and it is a difficult task for a trier of fact to unravel these facts. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Mediation Clause Can Stay a Miller Act Claim, Just Not Forever

    July 11, 2021 —
    It seems to be Miller Act time here at Construction Law Musings, not to mention in the Federal District Courts here in Virginia. Last week I discussed what sort of work can form the basis for a Miller Act claim. This week I am discussing the effect of a mandatory mediation contract clause on the same type of claim. I have discussed both the benefits and the possible negative consequences of the inclusion of such a clause in your construction contract. The recent case out of the Norfolk, Virginia Federal District Court recently explored the related question of whether such a clause can be enforced in the context of a Miller Act claim. In United States of America, for the use of Precision Air Conditioning of Brevard Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, the Court was confronted with a possible conflict between the legal requirement that any waiver of the right to pursue a Miller Act claim must be explicitly waived in writing and the clear contractual language between the general contractor and the plaintiff stating that mediation was a condition precedent to suit. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at