• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building expert witness Anchorage Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska hospital construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska parking structure expert witness Anchorage Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska tract home expert witness Anchorage Alaska housing expert witness Anchorage Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska production housing expert witness Anchorage Alaska condominium expert witness Anchorage Alaska condominiums expert witness Anchorage Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Anchorage Alaska retail construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Anchorage Alaska low-income housing expert witness Anchorage Alaska office building expert witness Anchorage Alaska townhome construction expert witness Anchorage Alaska custom home expert witness Anchorage Alaska multi family housing expert witness Anchorage Alaska industrial building expert witness Anchorage Alaska custom homes expert witness Anchorage Alaska
    Anchorage Alaska expert witness concrete failureAnchorage Alaska fenestration expert witnessAnchorage Alaska expert witness windowsAnchorage Alaska consulting architect expert witnessAnchorage Alaska building envelope expert witnessAnchorage Alaska reconstruction expert witnessAnchorage Alaska architectural expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Anchorage, 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anchorage Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Anchorage Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Anchorage Alaska

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    National Lobbying Firm Opens Colorado Office, Strengthening Construction Defect Efforts

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Changing Course Midstream Did Not Work in River Dredging Project

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    #1 CDJ Topic: McMillin Albany LLC v Superior Court of California

    Harmon Towers Demolition Still Uncertain

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates Awarded Silver Star Award at WCC Construction Defect Seminar

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    Construction Defect Notice in the Mailbox? Respond Appropriately

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

    Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit
    Corporate Profile


    The Anchorage, Alaska Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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 Anchorage'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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Anchorage, Alaska

    Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    September 04, 2018 —
    Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019. Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law, and Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation. Reprinted courtesy of William G. Baumgaertner, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Denis J. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Consumer Protections for California Residential Solar Energy Systems

    September 25, 2018 —
    It was already the case that in order to offer to install California residential solar energy systems, a contractor must be licensed by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) and must hold an appropriate specialty classification. Under AB 1070 enacted late last year (Chapter 662, Statutes of 2017), special consumer protections are being deployed for the benefit of homeowners. Those protections are steadily rolling out. Step one is the requirement of new Business & Professions Code (B&P Code) Section 7169 that, as of January 1, 2019, a disclosure document must be provided to consumers prior to sale and included on page 1 of the sale contract. The initial version of this document, which was developed by the CSLB and endorsed on August 23, 2018 by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), is available here. The disclosure requirement doesn’t apply to systems included in new home construction. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Alexandra Brandt, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at Ms. Brandt may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    September 10, 2018 —
    In a victory for policyholders, and an honorable mention for Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the dispersal of concrete dust that damaged inventory stored in an aircraft part distributor’s warehouse was a pollutant, as defined by the policy, but that it also constituted “smoke” as that term was defined in the dictionary, thereby implicating an exception to the policy’s pollution exclusion. The Court then granted summary judgment for the policyholder, who had suffered a $3.2 million loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    October 09, 2018 —
    On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    August 20, 2018 —
    In June, the New York Court of Appeals examined the application of a New York Choice of Law provision in a contract – a determinative issue for the case. In Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp., the issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims were subject to Ontario, Canada’s 2-year statute of limitations or New York’s 6-year statute of limitations for breach of contract where the contract contained a broad New York Choice of Law provision. The court found that pursuant to New York’s borrowing statute, Ontario’s more restrictive statute of limitations applied. The action was dismissed as time-barred, serving as a harsh reminder of the potential effects of choice of law and limitations periods. The suit arose out of the following facts. In 2008, an Ontario renewable energy developer, SkyPower Corp. (“SkyPower”), entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the defendants which allowed the defendants to review SkyPower’s confidential and proprietary information. The review was conditioned on restricted disclosure and the requirement that the information would be destroyed after review. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    January 15, 2019 —
    On December 9, 2018, United States v. Spearin, [1] a landmark construction law case, will be 100 years old. The Spearin “doctrine”[2] provides that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications. Some construction lawyers questioned whether the Spearin doctrine was still viable in Washington after the Washington Court of Appeals decided the recent case of King County v. Vinci Constr. Grand Projets.[3] Some concerned contractor industry groups even considered a “statutory fix” in the wake of the Court of Appeals Vinci decision. It is our opinion that the facts in the Vinci case are distinguishable and the Spearin doctrine is alive and thriving in Washington. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    November 08, 2018 —

    Governor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.


    On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).

    As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:

    "the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."

    The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.

    The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.


    The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.

    Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.


    Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Chelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    October 16, 2018 —
    Panama City, Fla. (AP) -- Powerful Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle with terrifying winds of 155 mph Wednesday, splintering homes and submerging neighborhoods before continuing its destructive march inland across the Southeast. It was the most powerful hurricane to hit the continental U.S. in nearly 50 years and at least one death was reported during its passage. Supercharged by abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Category 4 storm crashed ashore in the early afternoon near Mexico Beach, a tourist town about midway along the Panhandle, a 200-mile (320-kilometer) stretch of white-sand beach resorts, fishing towns and military bases. After it ravaged the Panhandle, Michael entered south Georgia as a Category 3 hurricane — the most powerful in recorded history for that part of the neighboring state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg