• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building expert witness Slocomb Alabama custom home expert witness Slocomb Alabama concrete tilt-up expert witness Slocomb Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama Medical building expert witness Slocomb Alabama low-income housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama condominiums expert witness Slocomb Alabama tract home expert witness Slocomb Alabama parking structure expert witness Slocomb Alabama landscaping construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama industrial building expert witness Slocomb Alabama townhome construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama production housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama multi family housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Slocomb Alabama retail construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama condominium expert witness Slocomb Alabama custom homes expert witness Slocomb Alabama hospital construction expert witness Slocomb Alabama institutional building expert witness Slocomb Alabama housing expert witness Slocomb Alabama casino resort expert witness Slocomb Alabama
    Slocomb Alabama construction cost estimating expert witnessSlocomb Alabama consulting general contractorSlocomb Alabama reconstruction expert witnessSlocomb Alabama consulting architect expert witnessSlocomb Alabama expert witness roofingSlocomb Alabama civil engineering expert witnessSlocomb Alabama construction expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Slocomb, 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 Slocomb Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Dothan & Wiregrass Area
    Local # 0132
    PO Box 9791
    Dothan, AL 36304
    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Enterprise Home Builders Association
    Local # 0133
    PO Box 310861
    Enterprise, AL 36331
    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Metro Mobile Inc
    Local # 0156
    1613 University Blvd S
    Mobile, AL 36609

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Baldwin County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0184
    916 PLantation Blvd
    Fairhope, AL 36532

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    South Alabama Home Builders Association
    Local # 0102
    PO Box 190
    Greenville, AL 36037
    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alabama
    Local # 0100
    PO Box 241305
    Montgomery, AL 36124

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Slocomb Alabama Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Slocomb Alabama

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    My Construction Law Wish List

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    No One to Go After for Construction Defects at Animal Shelter

    Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Suppliers of Inherently Dangerous Raw Materials Remain Excluded from the Protections of the Component Parts Doctrine

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management: Brett Moore Authors Law360 Article

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    What You Need to Know About Notices of Completion, Cessation and Non-Responsibility

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Prevailing HOAs Not Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Enforcement Actions Brought Under Davis-Stirling

    Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    Texas Supreme Court: Breach of Contract Not Required to Prevail on Statutory Bad Faith Claim

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint
    Corporate Profile


    The Slocomb, Alabama Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Slocomb, Alabama

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    May 06, 2019 —
    In Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Assoc’n, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that a claim against a subcontractor for damage caused to property outside the scope of its work satisfied the insuring agreement of a CGL policy. The condominium association for the building located at 950 West Huron Street in Chicago, Illinois (“the Association”), sued its general contractor and construction manager Belgravia Group, Ltd., and Belgravia Construction Corporation (collectively “Belgravia”). The Association sought to recover for alleged defects from Belgravia’s unworkmanlike construction of the building that permitted water to permeate and cause damage. In the Association’s complaint, it alleged that in June 2002, after the Association took possession of the building but prior to the completion of construction, Belgravia became aware of numerous conditions and defects, including extensive water infiltration of the building. After discussing the issues with Belgravia, the Association claimed that Belgravia retained contractors to provide cosmetic fixes. However, this did not address the problems and defects. The Association alleged that it spent a substantial amount of money to identify and correct the damage and that it would incur additional costs for future repairs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Bassett may be contacted at

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

    March 04, 2019 —
    As Morrissey of the Smith’s sang: Coyness is nice, but Coyness can stop you, from saying all the things in life you’d like to. It’s not uncommon in litigation to see a complaint asking for “damages according to proof.” Call it laziness. Call it hiding the ball. Call it coy, even. I call it risky. And here’s why: If a defendant doesn’t appear and you need to seek a default judgment against him, her, or it, you are barred from doing so, since you are limited to recovering the amount you sought. And last I checked, something of nothing is nothing. In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. G054522 (December 11, 2018), one plaintiff found this out the hard way, although perhaps not quite in the way they expected it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    “Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement

    March 27, 2019 —
    As demand for commercial bees used to pollinate crops (such as almond trees) has grown, so has the demand for facilities to store bees. Entering a lease agreement for the storage of live bees presents some unique issues the parties need to consider when negotiating the lease agreement. Don’t Bee Short-Sighted: Bees are often transported to different areas depending on the time of year, which means bees are not stored in the same facility all year. The lease agreement will often only provide for the storage of bees during the season when the bees are used for pollination in that particular area, but that does not mean the parties must limit the term of the lease agreement to a single season. The parties may consider entering into a lease agreement for multiple years that only applies during the pollination season each year. Bee Mindful of the Rent: Whereas the parties usually base rent in a typical commercial lease agreement off of the square footage of space the tenant uses in the premises, it often makes more sense for both parties negotiating a lease for the storage of bees to base the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes stored at the facility. Basing the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes provides the landlord with flexibility in storing the bees of multiple tenants in the same facility, and it can give the tenant flexibility with the number of bees it may need stored at the facility in any given season. With such a rental arrangement, a landlord should consider asking for a commitment from the tenant to deliver at least a certain number of beehives or colonies for storage, and the tenant should consider asking for a commitment from the landlord to reserve space in the facility for at least that same number of beehives or colonies as the tenant is giving a commitment for. Additionally, the parties will need to determine when rent will be paid. In a general commercial lease agreement, rent is usually paid monthly. With a bee storage lease agreement, however, a landlord may want to require the tenant to pay all of the rent for the season upon delivery of the bees, and the landlord may also want the tenant to pay a percentage of the rent to reserve space in the facility prior to delivery of the bees. This allows the landlord to get an early indication of what space in the facility it will have available in the facility for other tenants given the somewhat flexible rental arrangement of the parties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Addy may be contacted at

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    June 10, 2019 —
    The Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities. The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Mosman may be contacted at Mr. Morris may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    April 10, 2019 —
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has finalized its long-awaited approach to crane operator qualification and certification. The rule, which has followed a tortuous road to completion, ends the agency’s multi-year effort to conclude its update of safety requirements related to crane and derrick use in construction. The rule establishes a three-pronged approach to ensuring that crane operators can safely operate cranes:
    1. operator training for employees not yet certified to operate cranes;
    2. operator certification via four different permissible options; and
    3. employer evaluation of certified operators.
    Construction employers with employees who operate cranes should assess their training, certification and evaluation programs now to ensure they are fully compliant with the new rule. Reprinted courtesy of Bradford T. Hammock, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Taking Care of Infrastructure – Interview with Marilyn Grabowski

    February 06, 2019 —
    Marilyn Grabowski leads Atlantic Infrared with a mission to protect and improve infrastructure. In this interview, we discuss her professional background, the technologies that her team uses, and why more women should consider construction as a career. Marilyn Grabowski, known as “The Lady in Red”, and her team Atlantic Infra employees dubbed “The Red Crew” have been seamlessly filling potholes across the state of New Jersey since 2002. Under her leadership, The Red Crew uses infrared technology and unfailing attention to detail to expertly repair potholes, failed utility cuts and sunken trenches with no break in the road – creating safe and aesthetically pleasing repairs statewide, at a clip of 15,000 potholes per year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

    February 18, 2019 —
    In what is nothing short of a monumental decision, on January 11, 2019, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Allan Myers L.P. v. Department of Transportation ruled that nearly all project labor agreements in Pennsylvania are illegal under the Commonwealth’s procurement code. What are Project Labor Agreements? In short, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are pre-hire agreements that set the working conditions for all employees of contractors working on a construction project. Typically, a PLA is entered into between an public or private construction project owner and certain local building trade unions. PLAs require the use of union labor that is to be hired exclusively through the hiring halls of the unions who are parties to the PLA. PLAs are controversial because, among other reasons, while not expressly excluding non-union contractors from performing work on the project, they require non-union firms to use union members instead of their regular employees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    January 21, 2019 —
    The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied the insured's claim based upon misrepresentations in the application after destruction of his house by fire. Hayes v. Metropolitan Pro. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31813 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). Hayes' home was insured by Met under a homeowner's policy. Hayes used the detached garage as part of a home base for his plumbing business. He also rented out the second and third levels of the residence to a tenant and her two children. When Hayes applied for the policy in 2007, Met argues he indicated on the application that the premises were not used to conduct business, and were not used as rental property. 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