• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Chignik Alaska tract home expert witness Chignik Alaska landscaping construction expert witness Chignik Alaska office building expert witness Chignik Alaska condominium expert witness Chignik Alaska townhome construction expert witness Chignik Alaska low-income housing expert witness Chignik Alaska hospital construction expert witness Chignik Alaska condominiums expert witness Chignik Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Chignik Alaska institutional building expert witness Chignik Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Chignik Alaska Medical building expert witness Chignik Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Chignik Alaska parking structure expert witness Chignik Alaska custom homes expert witness Chignik Alaska custom home expert witness Chignik Alaska housing expert witness Chignik Alaska production housing expert witness Chignik Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Chignik Alaska multi family housing expert witness Chignik Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Chignik Alaska
    Chignik Alaska expert witness windowsChignik Alaska OSHA expert witness constructionChignik Alaska construction expert witness consultantChignik Alaska engineering consultantChignik Alaska building code expert witnessChignik Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationChignik Alaska construction defect 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

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

    Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Serving the 558 Notice of Construction Defect Letter in Light of the Statute of Repose

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

    School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    Augmenting BIM Classifications – Interview with Eveliina Vesalainen of Granlund

    The National Building Museum’s A-Mazing Showpiece

    Liability Policy’s Arbitration Endorsement Applies to Third Party Beneficiaries, Including Additional Insureds

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    2018 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

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

    Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Sinking S.F. Tower Prompts More Lawsuits

    Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    While Starts Fall, Builder Confidence and Permits are on the Rise

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?
    Corporate Profile


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

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Chignik, Alaska

    Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

    December 21, 2020 —
    Earlier this year I filed a complaint in a court which I won’t identify other than to say that it wasn’t the San Francisco Superior Court. Immediately upon filing the complaint the Court gave notice of a trial date. As counsel for the party bringing the action, I appreciate this, as it eliminates the back and forth jostling that can sometimes occur when trying to get a trial date. Here’s the kicker though. While I appreciate getting a trial date straight out of the gate. The date I got was . . . wait for it . . . not until 2022! Those who litigate in California state courts know that the courts are understaffed and overworked. But you’ve got to give this un-named court credit for being upfront. Forget the “well, let’s see where this goes” niceties. Trial within a year? Fugetaboutit. Trial within a year and a half. Don’t even think about it. Trial within two years. It’s about as good as you’re going to get. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?

    October 26, 2020 —
    The emergence of COVID-19 has created a new set of challenges in the already complex world of negotiating construction contracts. In the pre-COVID-19 era, general contractors, construction managers and those negotiating on their behalf, needed to balance a variety of fairly well-established legal risks and exposures and commercial realities with the need to maintain a positive relationship with their counterparty. While many are rightfully concerned with addressing the impacts of COVID-19 to their on-going projects, those negotiating new contracts now are undoubtedly cognizant that they are negotiating in the midst of an unpredictable future that is tipping the historical negotiating balance. The following presents some crucial areas to focus on when negotiating and drafting your contracts in this new era. Contract Terms Through the COVID-19 Lens Contractors should examine proposed new contracts carefully to identify rights that afford COVID-19 protections and identify contractual obligations that create COVID-19 commercial risks. Specific attention should be paid to those sections relating to force majeure/excusable delay, emergencies, changes (including changes in law), contingency, suspension and termination, site investigation as well as all representations and warranties. The paramount concern in examining these provisions is to ensure that they not only entitle the contractor to relief for those unknown events, emergencies and changes, but that they also contain sufficient entitlement for the contractor to obtain both time extensions and financial compensation for unknown impacts of a known event – the COVID-19 pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at Mr. Cohen may be contacted at Mr. Snyder may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

    September 28, 2020 —
    In Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy. Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured. Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Vita may be contacted at Ms. Kane may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

    December 21, 2020 —
    The manufacturer of roofing and waterproofing systems was unsuccessful in securing coverage for alleged faulty workmanship due to the "your work" and "your product" exclusions. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176539 (N.D. Texas Sept. 25, 2020). Siplast was sued in New York by the Archdiocese for work done at Cardinal Spellman High School. The Archdiocese purchased a Siplast Roof System for the high school. Vema Enterprises installed the roof system. The roof system was covered by a guarantee. After completion, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school. A consultant hired by the Archdiocese concluded that the leaks were caused by the workmanship and the materials that were compromising the entire roof membrane and system. Siplast determined the guarantee was not applicable. The Archdiocese informed Siplast that it would repair the roof and hold Siplast liable for the costs. Siplast gave notice of the claim to Employers, but coverage was denied. 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

    Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

    November 16, 2020 —
    In Truck Ins. Exchange v. AMCO Ins. Co. (No. B298798, filed 10/26/20), a California appeals court held that even though the named insured restaurant-lessee was found not liable for premises liability to injured restaurant patrons, the respective liability of the named and additional insured was irrelevant to the landlord-lessor’s coverage for injuries “arising out of” the lessee’s “use” of the premises under a landlords, managers or lessors of premises additional insured endorsement on the lessee’s general liability policy. In Truck v. AMCO, restaurant patrons were injured when a vehicle crashed into the restaurant while they were dining. The landlord was aware of a similar accident that happened several years before, but the current lessee operating the restaurant was not. The patrons sued the lessee, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to take precautionary measures and safeguard the patrons. On learning of the prior incident, the patrons added the landlord, alleging that it should have protected the property from a recurrence by reinforcing the door and installing bollards by the street. 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 California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    November 09, 2020 —
    The ballot initiative, Proposition 24, has been passed by voters in yesterday’s election. What does this proposition entail and how does it impact the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)? What’s Covered in Proposition 24 - The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) The CPRA, among other things, does the following:
    • Revises the existing CCPA to expand consumer rights with respect to personal information and sensitive personal information;
    • Creates a new agency responsible for enforcing the CPRA; and
    • Increases penalties for violations related to the personal information of children under the age of 16.
    As for additional consumer rights, the CPRA offers consumers the opportunity to request a correction of inaccurate personal information. In addition, a consumer may direct a company to “limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information” to a use that an average customer would expect. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at

    Autovol’s Affordable Housing Project with Robotic Automation

    February 15, 2021 —
    Just over two years since breaking ground, Autovol is now using automation in new ways as it nears completion of its first major affordable housing project. The project, Virginia Street Studios, will make high-quality apartment homes more affordable to seniors in San Jose, one of America’s 10 most expensive cities. The 400,000 square foot Autovol factory has now successfully deployed its unique combination of construction trades and robotic automation. Autovol has hired more than 100 employees, which the company calls Solutioneers. Led by CEO Rick Murdock and co-developed by The Pacific Companies, Autovol is pioneering a new kind of modular construction. Robotics lead into the future of housing “Automation and robotics will lead the world into the future of housing,” Murdock said. “What we’re doing hasn’t been attempted before. Our investors and Solutioneers leaned in with lots of confidence, and now we’re seeing great results that prove they were right.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    November 02, 2020 —
    The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at