• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Chignik Alaska parking structure expert witness Chignik Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Chignik Alaska hospital construction expert witness Chignik Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Chignik Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Chignik Alaska retail construction expert witness Chignik Alaska townhome construction expert witness Chignik Alaska institutional building expert witness Chignik Alaska casino resort expert witness Chignik Alaska Medical building expert witness Chignik Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Chignik Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Chignik Alaska multi family housing expert witness Chignik Alaska housing expert witness Chignik Alaska office building expert witness Chignik Alaska industrial building expert witness Chignik Alaska low-income housing expert witness Chignik Alaska condominiums expert witness Chignik Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Chignik Alaska custom home expert witness Chignik Alaska tract home expert witness Chignik Alaska
    Chignik Alaska testifying construction expert witnessChignik Alaska architect expert witnessChignik Alaska expert witness concrete failureChignik Alaska building code expert witnessChignik Alaska building consultant expertChignik Alaska construction expert witnessesChignik Alaska construction project management expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Chignik, 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 Chignik Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Southern Southeast Alaska Building Industry Association
    Local # 0240
    PO Box 6291
    Ketchikan, AK 99901

    Chignik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Chignik Alaska

    The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal

    Prevent Costly Curb Box Damage Due on New Construction Projects

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    NYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety Issues

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    Structural Engineer Found Liable for Defects that Rendered a Condominium Dangerously Unsafe

    Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Little Known Florida Venue Statue Benefitting Resident Contractors

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    The New “White Collar” Exemption Regulations

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

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

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Arizona Court of Appeals Upholds Judgment on behalf of Homeowners against Del Webb Communities for Homes Riddled with Construction Defects

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

    Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

    Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

    Eight Ways to Protect a Construction Company Before a Claim Is Filed

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

    Workarounds for Workers' Comp Immunity: How to Obtain Additional Insured Coverage when the Named Insured is Immune from Suit

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Hunton Insurance Partner, Larry Bracken, Elected to the American College of Coverage Counsel

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    Fact of Settlement Communications in Underlying Lawsuits is Not Ground for Anti-SLAPP Motion in Subsequent Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2020

    Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List
    Corporate Profile


    The Chignik, Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Chignik, Alaska

    Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

    October 05, 2020 —
    The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in pending COVID-19 business interruption claims. In re COVID-19 Business interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 144446 (Aug. 12, 2020). Plaintiff policy holders sought consolidation, contending their policies provided coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. The Panel considered 15 actions on the pending motions, but had notice of 263 related actions. Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or sought to be excluded from any MDL. Some argued the Panel should centralize the coverage actions on a state-by-state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis. The Panel did not accept consolidation of all cases. There was little potential for common discovery across the litigation because there was no common defendant as the actions involved either a single insurer or insurer-group. The various cases involved different insurance policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses in different industries located in different states. 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

    Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

    August 10, 2020 —
    In Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance. Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski and Austin F. Smith Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at Mr. Smith may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

    September 28, 2020 —
    In Greater Mutual Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company, 2020 WL 5370419 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to consider the “other insurance” provisions of a commercial general liability policy, issued by Greater Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”), and a directors and officers (“D&O”) policy, issued by Continental, to the same insured. The GNY policy covered, inter alia, property damage caused by an occurrence, as well as “personal advertising injury,” defined to include “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor.” The Continental D&O policy covered claims for wrongful acts, including “wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right to private occupancy. . . .” Unlike the GNY policy, however, the Continental policy expressly excluded coverage for damage to tangible property. In the underlying action, the plaintiffs alleged that the insured engaged in construction work to fix a leak from a terrace on the seventeenth floor. In doing so, the insured accessed the plaintiffs’ roof terrace. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction workers installed and stored construction materials on the roof terrace, making the plaintiffs unable to access the terrace. Plaintiffs also alleged that their deck furniture may have suffered damage, and that the workers had a “direct line of sight” into their unit, resulting in the plaintiffs having to leave their unit frequently. Causes of action were for property damage, constructive eviction, partial constructive eviction, and invasion of privacy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at

    Value in Recording Lien within Effective Notice of Commencement

    August 03, 2020 —
    Construction lien priority is no joke! This is why a lienor wants to record its construction lien within an effective notice of commencement. A lien recorded within an effective notice of commencement relates back in time from a priority standpoint to the date the notice of commencement was recorded. A lienor that records a lien wants to ensure its lien is superior, and not inferior, to other encumbrances. An inferior lien or encumbrance may not provide much value if there is not sufficient equity in the property. Plus, an inferior lien or encumbrance can be foreclosed. An example of the importance of lien priority can be found in the recent decision of Edward Taylor Corp. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 45 Fla.L.Weekly D1447b (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). In this case, a contractor recorded a notice of commencement for an owner. While an owner is required to sign the notice of commencement that the contractor usually records, in this case, the owner did not sign the notice of commencement. Shortly after, the owner’s lender recorded a mortgage and then had the owner sign a notice of commencement and this notice of commencement was also recorded. When there is a construction lender, the lender always wants to make sure its mortgage is recorded first—before any notice of commencement—for purposes of priority and has the responsibility to ensure the notice of commencement is recorded. Here, the lender apparently did not realize the contractor had already recorded a notice of commencement at the time it recorded its mortgage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Partners Nicole Whyte and Karen Baytosh are Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers 2021 and Nicole Nuzzo is Selected for Inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch

    September 28, 2020 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partners Nicole Whyte and Karen Baytosh have been chosen for inclusion in Best Lawyers 2021 Edition! CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte has been selected for the 2nd time by her peers for inclusion in the 27th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, for her work in Family Law. Reno Partner Karen Baytosh is also being recognized by her peers for her work in Commercial Litigation. This is an outstanding recognition as only the top 5% of talent in the United States are chosen for inclusion in this publication. BWB&O is also excited to share Partner Nicole Nuzzo has been selected by her peers for her inclusion in the edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, for her work in Family Law. The “Ones to Watch” award gives recognition to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions

    October 19, 2020 —
    Courts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided. In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kean Maynard, White and Williams
    Mr. Maynard may be contacted at

    Hurricane Laura: Implications for Insurers in Louisiana

    October 19, 2020 —
    Just two days before the 15th Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Category 4 Hurricane Laura made landfall near Cameron, Louisiana. Although the “unsurvivable” 20-foot storm surge, which had been predicted ahead of the storm, thankfully was significantly less, the impact of Laura on the Southwest Coast of Louisiana and Southeast Coast of Texas and its neighboring parishes and counties, most notably Cameron Parish, was quite severe. Lake Charles, Louisiana suffered widespread flooding and sustained catastrophic wind damage. Although the storm moved quickly, it retained its strength longer than expected such that even areas well inland sustained considerable damage. Preliminary estimates for insured losses from storm surge, flooding, and winds range from $8 to $12 billion for residential and commercial properties. Insurers providing residential or commercial property insurance in Louisiana should keep the following statutory claims handling requirements in mind. Louisiana Statutory Provisions Under Louisiana law, an insurer is expected to comply with certain statutory requirements in investigating and handling claims submitted by its insureds and third-party claimants. The majority of these requirements, and the consequences of their violation, are codified by La. R.S. 22:1892, which governs the payment and adjustment of claims, and La. R.S. 22:1973, which delineates an insurer’s duty of good faith. Together, the statutes impose three requirements on insurers: timely initiation of loss adjustment, timely payment of claims, and a duty of good faith and fairness in the adjustment and payment of said claims. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Michel, Lewis Brisbois and Tabitha Durbin, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Michel may be contacted at Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Arkansas Federal Court Fans the Product Liability Flames Utilizing the Malfunction Theory

    September 14, 2020 —
    To establish a product liability claim in Arkansas, the plaintiff must prove that the product was supplied in a defective condition, which rendered it unreasonably dangerous and that the defective condition was the proximate cause of the claimed damage or injury. Ordinarily, a plaintiff relies upon direct evidence of a product defect to establish its product liability claim. However, in some cases, the product sustains so much damage that it is impossible for a plaintiff to obtain direct evidence of a defect. The malfunction theory allows a plaintiff in a product liability action to establish a defect through circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence of a defect no longer exists. In order to utilize the malfunction theory, a plaintiff must present evidence that an unspecified product defect was the most likely cause of the damage/accident and rule out all other possible causes of the damage/accident. In Am. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, No. 5:18-CV-5250, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117116, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled that the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence under “the malfunction theory” to defeat a summary judgment motion in a product liability action involving a bathroom fan that was destroyed in a fire. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at