• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home expert witness Anvik Alaska low-income housing expert witness Anvik Alaska retail construction expert witness Anvik Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Anvik Alaska industrial building expert witness Anvik Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Anvik Alaska custom home expert witness Anvik Alaska production housing expert witness Anvik Alaska hospital construction expert witness Anvik Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Anvik Alaska townhome construction expert witness Anvik Alaska institutional building expert witness Anvik Alaska housing expert witness Anvik Alaska Medical building expert witness Anvik Alaska condominium expert witness Anvik Alaska parking structure expert witness Anvik Alaska casino resort expert witness Anvik Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Anvik Alaska condominiums expert witness Anvik Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Anvik Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Anvik Alaska custom homes expert witness Anvik Alaska
    Anvik Alaska building consultant expertAnvik Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationAnvik Alaska construction expert testimonyAnvik Alaska reconstruction expert witnessAnvik Alaska construction defect expert witnessAnvik Alaska construction expert witness consultantAnvik Alaska architectural expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Anvik, 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 Anvik Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Anvik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Anvik Alaska

    Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Virtual Reality for Construction

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    Buyer's Demolishing of Insured's Home Not Barred by Faulty Construction Exclusion

    2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    Interior Designer Licensure

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Construction Up in United States

    FAA Plans Final Regulation on Commercial Drone Use by Mid-2016

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    Risk Management for Condominium Conversions

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    David M. McLain, Esq. to Speak at the 2014 CLM Claims College

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth
    Corporate Profile


    The Anvik, 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Anvik'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
    Anvik, Alaska

    Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy (No. A150562, filed 1/4/19), a California appeals court held that policyholders could state a claim for invasion of privacy against an insurer’s coverage counsel and law firm, where the counsel had disseminated inadvertently produced tax returns to forensic accountants while evaluating coverage. In Strawn, a couple’s home was destroyed by fire and the husband was prosecuted for arson, but the criminal case was dropped. Notwithstanding, their insurance claim was denied on the ground that the husband intentionally set the fire and fraudulently concealed his actions. In addition to the insurance company, the insureds also named the carrier’s coverage counsel and his firm in the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, alleging causes of action for elder financial abuse and invasion of privacy. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    February 27, 2019 —
    A Resolution has been proposed to the House for consideration that would recognize the Federal Government’s duty “to create a Green New Deal.” It sets forth a very ambitious 10-year program to mobilize and transform every aspect of American life to combat the threats of climate change by transitioning to an economy based upon 100% clean and renewable energy. In doing so, millions of new jobs would be created, and everyone who wants a job would be guaranteed a job. The sponsors’ talking points declare that there is no time to lose, that Americans love a challenge, and “this is our moonshot.” The obvious goal is to eliminate the generation and use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy—they are simply not part of the solution. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    April 10, 2019 —
    California landlords must follow very specific steps before disposing of property that is clearly abandoned, left on real estate which has been the subject of court proceedings such as eviction or foreclosure, or otherwise left behind. Following the statutory procedures relating to abandoned property protects landlords from potential liability for an improper “conversion.” Former tenants/owners and others “reasonably believed” to be owners of the apparently abandoned personal property must be given proper written notice of the right to reclaim the abandoned property. The tenant is presumed to be the owner of any “records” remaining on the property. The California Code of Civil Procedure provides a template for such notice. The notice to be provided to former tenants/owners must be in “substantially” the same form provided in the California Code of Civil Procedure and must contain the following information:
    1. A description of the abandoned property in a manner reasonably adequate to permit the owner of the property to identify it;
    2. The location where the tenant can claim the property;
    3. The time frame that the tenant has to claim the property. The date specified in the notice shall be a date not less than fifteen (15) days after the notice is personally delivered or, if mailed, not less than eighteen (18) days after the notice is deposited in the mail;
    4. A statement that reasonable storage costs will be charged to the tenant/owner and the tenant/owner must pay those costs before claiming the property; and
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    February 06, 2019 —
    In newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019). In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:
    “Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    February 19, 2019 —
    In a recent case in Kentucky[1], a sub-tier subcontractor sued the general contractor and owner for failure to pay for extra work. At the trial, the court held the subcontractor was entitled to recover under the theories of implied contracts and unjust enrichment, even though the subcontract contained a “pay-if-paid” clause. All parties appealed. In particular, the general contractor asserted that the pay-if-paid provision in the subcontract precluded recovery by the subcontractor. The issue was petitioned to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky was whether a pay-if-paid provision was enforceable as between a general contractor and subcontractor, and if so, whether the subcontractor could nevertheless pursue the owner directly for payment notwithstanding a lack of privity between the owner and subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at

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

    February 27, 2019 —
    In Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at Mr. Squillario may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    May 27, 2019 —
    On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Subcontractor Entitled to Defense for Defective Work Causing Property Damage Beyond Its Scope of Work

    May 27, 2019 —
    The Illinois Court of Appeals found the subcontractor was owed a defense for alleged property damage caused by its faulty workmanship, but outside its scope of work. Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Ass'n, 2019 Ill. App. LEXIS 208 (Ill. Ct. App. March 29, 2019). The condominium association sued its general contractor, Belgravia, for alleged defects allowing water to infiltrate and cause damage. Belgravia filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including the carpentry subcontractor Denk & Roche. Denk & Roche held a CGL policy with two insurers during the relevant period, one with Cincinnati Insurance Company for the period January 1, 2000 through June 1, 2007, and another with Acuity Insurance Company, effective June 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013. Denk & Roche tendered its defense to both insurers. Cincinnati agreed to defend and contributed to a settlement of the AOAO's claims. Acuity denied a defense, contending that the underlying claims did not trigger a duty to defend. Acuity's declaratory judgment suit sought a determination that it had no duty to defend. Cincinnati intervened and argued it was entitled to equitable contribution from Acuity. 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