• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing expert witness Madrid Alabama condominiums expert witness Madrid Alabama office building expert witness Madrid Alabama institutional building expert witness Madrid Alabama concrete tilt-up expert witness Madrid Alabama low-income housing expert witness Madrid Alabama production housing expert witness Madrid Alabama townhome construction expert witness Madrid Alabama Medical building expert witness Madrid Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Madrid Alabama casino resort expert witness Madrid Alabama industrial building expert witness Madrid Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Madrid Alabama custom homes expert witness Madrid Alabama hospital construction expert witness Madrid Alabama landscaping construction expert witness Madrid Alabama custom home expert witness Madrid Alabama condominium expert witness Madrid Alabama tract home expert witness Madrid Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Madrid Alabama retail construction expert witness Madrid Alabama housing expert witness Madrid Alabama
    Madrid Alabama hospital construction expert witnessMadrid Alabama engineering expert witnessMadrid Alabama construction expert witness public projectsMadrid Alabama construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessMadrid Alabama consulting general contractorMadrid Alabama expert witnesses fenestrationMadrid Alabama building expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Madrid, Alabama

    Alabama Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Although there is case law precedent for right to repair, Title 6 Article 13A states action must be commenced within 2 years after cause and not more than 13 years after completion of construction.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Madrid Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tallapoosa Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0186
    714 Commerce Drive
    Alexander City, AL 35010
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Tuscaloosa
    Local # 0188
    2009 Paul W Bryant Dr
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35401

    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Chilton County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0117
    209 Parliament Parkway
    Maylene, AL 35114
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lee Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0136
    528 Lafayette Pl
    Auburn, AL 36830
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Phenix City
    Local # 0172
    1808 Opelika Road
    Phenix City, AL 36867
    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Associated Home Builders of Greater Birmingham
    Local # 0116
    5000 Grantswood Road Ste 240
    Irondale, AL 35210

    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117

    Madrid Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Madrid Alabama

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

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

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    Texas Approves Law Ensuring Fair and Open Competition

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted

    How Tech Is Transforming the Construction Industry in 2019

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Is Your Website Accessible And Are You Liable If It Isn't?

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    How Machine Learning Can Help with Urban Development

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    In Texas, a General Contractor May be Liable in Tort to a Third-Party Lessee for Property Damage Caused by a Subcontractor’s Work

    CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Colorado Trench Collapse Kills Two
    Corporate Profile


    The Madrid, Alabama 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 Madrid'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
    Madrid, Alabama

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    December 16, 2019 —
    How do we define circumstances and injuries that go beyond a typical claim and severely impact a person’s life? How do we characterize the types of claims where an individual’s enjoyment of life is affected in an extraordinary manner? Typically, attorneys refer to these types of cases as “catastrophic injury” claims. These are the type of personal injury claims where the health of an individual has been so seriously impacted that their life has been irreparably altered. Defining these claims legally is somewhat murky and case law has done little to provide attorneys with a specific definition of the term. However, a recent Workers Compensation Appeals Board ruling attempted to list factors in order to establish a catastrophic injury claim. These include:
    1. An intensity and seriousness of treatment received for an injury;
    2. The ultimate outcome when a person’s physical injury is permanent and stationary;
    3. Whether the severity of the physical injury impacts the person’s ability to perform daily activities;
    4. Whether the physical injury is closely analogous to one of the injuries specified in various statutes, including loss of a limb, paralysis, severe burns, or a severe head injury; and
    5. If the physical injury is incurable or progressive. Wilson v. State of California CAL Fire (5/10/19) 2019 Cal.Wrk.Comp. LEXIS 29.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Coronavirus Is Starting to Slow the Solar Energy Revolution

    March 09, 2020 —
    The coronavirus outbreak is threatening to slow the global solar-energy revolution as it cuts the supply of key equipment for solar and wind farms in China and beyond. As cases of the disease mounted over the past week, manufacturers including Trina Solar Ltd. sounded the alarm over production delays while developers like Manila Electric Co. in the Philippines said projects would be held up. “If the virus outbreak lasts beyond the first quarter and spreads to more geographies, as is currently happening in Korea and Italy, then it may very well slow down global renewable energy deployment,” said Ali Izadi-Najafabadi, head of analysis in Asia for BloombergNEF which has downgraded its outlook for installations this year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    March 02, 2020 —
    In Aggreko, LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co.,1 the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Texas District Court and held that a Covenant Not to Execute constituted a “settlement” sufficient to exhaust policy limits and terminate a primary insurer’s duty to defend. This case arose out of a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of James Brenek II (“Brenek”). In 2014, Brenek was fatally electrocuted by an electrically energized generator housing cabinet while performing work on a rig in Texas for Guichard Operating Company, LLC (“Guichard”), a Louisiana-based drilling subcontractor. Guichard had leased the generator from Aggreko, LLC (“Aggreko”). A rental agreement between Guichard and Aggreko required Guichard to maintain commercial general liability insurance during the lease period and list Aggreko and the rig owner, Rutherford Oil Corporation (“Rutherford”), as additional insureds under the policy. Guichard’s primary insurance carrier, The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”), agreed to defend and indemnify Aggreko and Rutherford in the wrongful death suit. The Gray policy had a limit of $1,000,000, subject to a $50,000 self-insured retention. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Combating Climate Change by Reducing Embodied Energy in the Built Environment

    December 02, 2019 —
    The building and construction industry is a significant consumer of non-renewable energy resources and is contributing to changing the earth’s environment in damaging and irreversible ways. These impacts are being felt in climate-related shifts that include increases in the earth’s average temperature and rising sea levels. A new report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 2018 was the fourth-hottest year since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable global temperature data is available. The three hottest years on record were 2015, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, the rise in sea levels is causing “nuisance floods” to become more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the United States grew from two per year to nearly 12. These and other environmental impacts underscore the urgency of battling climate change and how critical it is for all industries—including construction—to stem the tide on this issue. Reducing embodied energy in the built environment is one way the building and construction sector can do its part to address one of the major challenges of this century. Reprinted courtesy of Brent Trenga, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Trenga may be contacted at

    The 2019 ISO Forms: Additions, Revisions, and Pitfalls

    February 24, 2020 —
    The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) issued several new and revised endorsements for use with Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage forms, which became effective December 1, 2019, in most jurisdictions. The new ISO endorsements include several notable changes that Policyholders should be aware of, including revisions to existing Additional Insured (AI), Primary and Noncontributory, and Waiver of Subrogation endorsements, as well as a number of new AI and other endorsement forms. A summary of the more significant elements of new ISO endorsements is provided below. NEW ISO FORMS
    • New AI Endorsements - Automatic Status for Completed Operations
    For Contractors, Owners and other construction industry stakeholders, there are two new AI endorsements of note, CG 20 39 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners, Lessee or Contractors – Automatic Status when Required in Written Construction Agreement with You (Completed Operations) and CG 20 40 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners Lessees or Contractors – Automatic Status for Other Parties when Required in Written Construction Agreement (Completed Operations). AI coverage for Completed Operations is generally provided under form CG 20 37, which requires each additional insured to be listed in the endorsement schedule. The new ISO endorsements automatically extend AI status for Completed Operations without having to specifically identify each additional insured, thereby mirroring current AI endorsements that confer automatic AI status for Ongoing Operations (e.g. CG 20 33 and CG 20 38). Thus, the CG 20 39 and CG 20 40, correspond with CG 20 33 (ongoing operations), and CG 20 38 (ongoing operations), respectively, to extend AI coverage for Completed Operations. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Richard Brown, Michael V. Pepe and Janie Reilly Eddy Mr. Brown may be contacted at Mr. Pepe may be contacted at Ms. Eddy may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    January 20, 2020 —
    While Nunn-Agreements[1] may be appealing for both plaintiffs and defendants where an insurer unreasonably fails to defend a lawsuit, a recent opinion from The Honorable Marcia Krieger in the United States District Court of Colorado[2] (“Opinion”) demonstrates the importance of first confirming that there exists a viable insurance claim before proceeding with such a Nunn- Agreement. The facts giving rise to the Opinion were as follows. In March 2015, a Homeowner couple (the “Homeowners”) suffered damages to their home resulting from a brushfire. Fortunately, the Homeowners were insured, they submitted their claim to their homeowners’ insurance carrier which was in effect at the time of the brushfire (the “Insurance Carrier”), and the Insurance Carrier paid the claim. Ostensibly as part of the Homeowners’ remediation efforts to their home they removed a large bush which left a hole in the ground. After paying the claim, in August 2015 the Insurance Carrier cancelled or elected not to renew the Homeowners’ policy. In October 2015, a repairman working on the Home (the “Repairman”) was injured after his ladder fell over allegedly because of the hole in the ground caused by the bush that had been removed. As a result of injuries caused by the fall from the ladder, the Repairman brought suit against the Homeowners. In response to the Repairman’s claim, the Homeowners again tendered to their Insurance Carrier. This time, however, the Insurance Carrier denied coverage on the basis that the Repairman’s injuries occurred after the expiration of the relevant policy. Without insurance coverage, the Homeowner’s entered into a Nunn-Agreement with the Repairman, conceding liability, and assigning any claims they might have had against the Insurance Carrier in lieu of execution of any judgment against the Homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall

    December 30, 2019 —
    On September 30, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in an action involving a guest injured in a fall at a wedding. Traub Lieberman’s client owned the property where the fall occurred. Plaintiff fell while exiting a row of seats after the bridal party had recessed down the aisle. Plaintiff claimed that she tripped over the raised side of a paper runner that had been placed in the aisle at the property. Plaintiff brought an action against Traub Lieberman’s client (the owner of the building) and the florist that had provided the runner. The owner had provided the bridal party with access to the property but did not assist in the set up for the wedding or have any employees present during the ceremony. The florist had supplied the runner for the wedding. The florist commenced a third-party action against the bride, whose wedding party had actually placed the runner in the aisle. Plaintiff asserted that the runner had become bunched and crumpled during the ceremony, creating a dangerous condition. She further asserted that the owner was responsible for her injuries since the dangerous condition existed on its property and it should have an employee present to insure no dangerous conditions existed. During the course of discovery, Mr. Harwood established that no one representing the owner was present during the wedding, had any involvement in the placement of the runner or had received any complaints about the runner. In support of the motion for summary judgment Mr. Harwood introduced pictures showing, in conjunction with deposition testimony, that there were no problems with the runner minutes before plaintiff’s fall. Mr. Harwood also argued that the alleged defect did not involve the property itself, absolving the owner of any obligation to plaintiff. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court held that evidence and testimony showed that the owner neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice that any dangerous condition existed. The court also held that there the owner did not have any duty to have a representative present during the wedding since the property itself was not dangerous or defective. Finally, the court held that the condition of the runner was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Harwood may be contacted at

    Washington High Court Holds Insurers Bound by Representations in Agent’s Certificates of Insurance

    March 16, 2020 —
    In responding to a certified question from the Ninth Circuit in T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, the Washington Supreme Court has held that an insurer is bound by representations regarding a party’s additional insured status contained in a certificate of insurance issued by the insurer’s authorized agent, even where the certificate contains language disclaiming any effect on coverage. To hold otherwise, the court noted, would render meaningless representations made on the insurer’s behalf and enable the insurer to mislead parties without consequence. The certified question and ruling stem from T-Mobile USA’s appeal of the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Selective Insurance Company on T-Mobile USA’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. Selective issued the insurance policy at issue to a contractor of T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of T-Mobile USA. Through endorsement, the policy extended “additional insured” status to T-Mobile NE because the contract between T-Mobile NE and the insured required that T-Mobile NE be added as an additional insured. Additional insured status was not, however, extended to T-Mobile USA, as T-Mobile USA had not entered a written contract with the insured. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Ms. Spatz may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of