• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska custom homes expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska Medical building expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska housing expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska hospital construction expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska multi family housing expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska condominium expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska industrial building expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska office building expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska retail construction expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska condominiums expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska parking structure expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska casino resort expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska tract home expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska townhome construction expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska production housing expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska custom home expert witness Trapper Creek Alaska
    Trapper Creek Alaska structural concrete expertTrapper Creek Alaska window expert witnessTrapper Creek Alaska structural engineering expert witnessesTrapper Creek Alaska construction code expert witnessTrapper Creek Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationTrapper Creek Alaska construction expert witness consultantTrapper Creek Alaska architectural expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Trapper Creek, 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 Trapper Creek Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Mat-Su Home Builders Association
    Local # 0230
    Wasilla, AK 99654

    Trapper Creek Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Trapper Creek Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Trapper Creek Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Trapper Creek Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Trapper Creek Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Trapper Creek Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Trapper Creek Alaska Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Trapper Creek Alaska

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

    School District Practice Bulletin: Loose Lips Can Sink More Than Ships

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    Architect Plans to 3D-Print a Two-Story House

    Narberth Mayor Urges Dubious Legal Action

    Little Known Florida Venue Statue Benefitting Resident Contractors

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

    Automating Your Home? There’s an App for That

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    Do Change Orders Need to be in Writing and Other Things That Might Surprise You

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    ICC/ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Green Model Code Integrates Existing Standards

    Construction Defect Coverage Summary 2013: The Business Risks Shift To Insurers

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen
    Corporate Profile


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

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    March 01, 2021 —
    In Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”. The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at

    Missouri Asbestos Litigation Reform: New Bill Seeks to Establish Robust Disclosure Obligations

    March 15, 2021 —
    Missouri State Senator Eric Burlison is reviving attempts to reform asbestos litigation in the State of Missouri through the introduction of SB 331. This bill was pre-filed on December 29, 2020 and first read on January 6, 2021. The bill establishes disclosure procedures for claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits. Specifically, the bill, if passed, would require claimants in civil asbestos-related lawsuits to file a sworn information form within 30 days of filing an asbestos-related lawsuit. The required disclosures under SB 331 include, but are not limited to (1) each asbestos-containing product to which the exposed person was exposed and each physical location at which the exposure occurred; (2) the identity of the manufacturer or distributor of specific asbestos-containing products for each named exposure; (3) the specific location and manner of each exposure; (4) the beginning and end dates of each exposure, the frequency and length of each exposure, and the proximity of the asbestos-containing product or its use to the exposed person; and (5) a certification that any claim that can be made with a bankruptcy trust concerning any asbestos injury to the exposed person has been filed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer B. Pigeon, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Pigeon may be contacted at

    Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

    February 22, 2021 —
    If you have read prior articles (see here and here as an example), then you know that when it comes to first-party property insurance policies, an insured must comply with post-loss obligations in the policy. Failure to comply with a post-loss obligation gives the insurer the argument that the insured materially breached the policy and, therefore, forfeited rights to coverage. Naturally, this is avoidable by ensuring post-loss obligations are complied with, ideally under the guidance of counsel and qualified public adjusters to ensure your rights are being preserved and maximized.
    [W]hen an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horne, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D201b (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) quoting American Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So.3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    No Coverage for Collapse of Building

    January 04, 2021 —
    Damage to a building caused by the break of a water pipe was not a collapse under the policy. Naabani Twin Stars v. Travelers Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196443 (D. N. M. Oct. 22, 2020). An underground water line ruptured on plaintiffs property This caused a collapse under the adjacent parking lot, which in turn caused land beneath the building go change positions and damage the building. A geotechnical consultant concluded that a material change in the site conditions occurred as a direct result of the rupture of the water pipe in the parking lot, and that those changes directly affected the settlement of the building. Travelers denied coverage for the damage. Travelers concluded that the building settlement was the result of subsurface movement, which invoked the earth movement exclusion. Travelers inspection concluded that the building was not in a state of collapse. The policy defined collapse as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or structure, or any part of a building or structure, with the result that the building, or part of the building, cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." 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

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    November 09, 2020 —
    Shutdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted an unprecedented number of business income and business interruption insurance claims. Many claims have resulted in litigation and require judicial intervention to determine whether private insurance carriers owe policyholders indemnification for pandemic related losses. Private insurance carriers that have denied the claims, in large part, argue that they did not underwrite coverage for the pandemic and assert that pandemic coverage is much too unpredictable to underwrite. Private carriers contend that a government-backed insurance program is necessary to mitigate the economic impact resulting from pandemic claims. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted real estate owners and developers. Real estate owners and developers have sustained business income losses in the form of lost rents at commercial properties, service disruption, labor and/ or material shortages, to name a few. Questions about whether the virus caused “direct physical damage,” as well as whether specific “virus exclusions” on policies, have provided hurdles to coverage under existing schemes, click here.Those that have filed lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage under current policy terms are having mixed results, at best. Click here to view SDV’s Litigation Tracker. A predictable source of indemnification for future pandemic-related losses would greatly relieve business disruption and, ultimately, the impact on the economy. However, the question remains, who will pay for such massive losses? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    December 29, 2020 —
    In American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2020 WL 5630017 (Sept. 21, 2020), the Northern District of California of the United States District Court had occasion to consider whether allegations in an underlying complaint triggered a duty to defend and a late notice defense to coverage. The underlying actions were a suit against the City of Walnut Creek for damages from flooding allegedly caused by the City’s failure to develop and maintain its storm drains.The City settled the cases then sued its liability insurers who issued its coverage in the period 1968 to 1986 for indemnification of the amounts spent to defend and settle the cases.The published decision involved three Travelers’ policies issued to the City between 1968 and 1976, as to which Travelers sought summary judgment as to the lack of coverage in its policies. The district court first found that the definition of an “occurrence” in the policies, in one policy “an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which causes injury to person or damage to property during the policy period” and in the other two “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the period this policy is in effect, in bodily injury or property damage,” fell within the rule of Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, that injury or damage during the policy period must occur in order for the policy to be triggered.The court agreed with Travelers that while there were allegations of flooding for many years, the only claims/allegations of property damage were for the period 2000 and later.Therefore the property damage coverage in the policies was never triggered. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Dennison may be contacted at

    Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums

    January 18, 2021 —
    Withholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness. “Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available. This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Mr. Underwood may be contacted at

    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    November 02, 2020 —
    In this summary of recent developments in environmental and regulatory law, venues are challenged, standing is upheld, statutory exemption is disputed and more. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Change Must Come from Within … Maryland? As the new term begins, the Court has agreed to review BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which held that a climate change damages case filed against many energy companies must be heard in the state courts of Maryland and not the federal courts. The petitioners argue that the federal office removal statute authorizes such removal, and the Fourth Circuit’s contrary decision conflicts with rulings from other circuit courts. THE FEDERAL COURTS Where Is the Fund in That? On September 25,2020, in U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the lower court should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. House of Representatives challenging the Executive Branch’s transferal of appropriated funds to the Department of Defense to build a physical barrier along the southern border of the United State. The case is More than $8 billion is at stake, a sum that had been transferred from various federal accounts not involved with building the wall. The appeals court held that the lower court should not have dismissed this lawsuit because the House of Representatives had standing to bring this lawsuit even if the U.S. Senate was not involved with this litigation. Accordingly, the case was returned to the lower court for additional findings, with the appeals court noting that the Constitution’s Appropriation’s Clause serves as an important check on the Executive Branch. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at