• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama casino resort expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama retail construction expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama townhome construction expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama custom home expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama custom homes expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama condominiums expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama production housing expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama hospital construction expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama industrial building expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama tract home expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama housing expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama low-income housing expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama Medical building expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama high-rise construction expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama office building expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama multi family housing expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama institutional building expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama concrete tilt-up expert witness Clayhatchee Alabama
    Clayhatchee Alabama expert witness roofingClayhatchee Alabama building envelope expert witnessClayhatchee Alabama expert witness windowsClayhatchee Alabama architectural engineering expert witnessClayhatchee Alabama construction claims expert witnessClayhatchee Alabama engineering consultantClayhatchee Alabama construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Clayhatchee, Alabama

    Alabama Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Although there is case law precedent for right to repair, Title 6 Article 13A states action must be commenced within 2 years after cause and not more than 13 years after completion of construction.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Clayhatchee Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Tallapoosa Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0186
    714 Commerce Drive
    Alexander City, AL 35010
    Clayhatchee Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Tuscaloosa
    Local # 0188
    2009 Paul W Bryant Dr
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35401

    Clayhatchee Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Chilton County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0117
    209 Parliament Parkway
    Maylene, AL 35114
    Clayhatchee Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Lee Co Home Builders Association
    Local # 0136
    528 Lafayette Pl
    Auburn, AL 36830
    Clayhatchee Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Phenix City
    Local # 0172
    1808 Opelika Road
    Phenix City, AL 36867
    Clayhatchee Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Associated Home Builders of Greater Birmingham
    Local # 0116
    5000 Grantswood Road Ste 240
    Irondale, AL 35210

    Clayhatchee Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117

    Clayhatchee Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Clayhatchee Alabama

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Remodel Leaves Guitarist’s Home Leaky and Moldy

    Couple Claims Poor Installation of Home Caused Defects

    Disruption: When Did It Start and Where Will It End?

    Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation

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

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Hawaii Federal Court Grants Insured's Motion for Remand

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology

    Top 10 Lessons Learned from a Construction Attorney

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    How Drones are Speeding Up Construction

    Disputed Facts on Cause of Collapse Results in Denied Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

    CGL Policies and the Professional Liabilities Exclusion

    House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    These Are the 13 Cities Where Millennials Can't Afford a Home

    As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    SNC-Lavalin’s Former Head of Construction Pleads Guilty to Bribery, Money Laundering

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    We Knew Concrete Could Absorb Carbon—New Study Tells How Much

    Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream

    DoD Will Require New Cybersecurity Standards in 2020: Could Other Agencies Be Next?

    Washington State Updates the Contractor Registration Statute

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    Insurer's Failure to Settle Does Not Justify Multiple Damages under Unfair Claims Settlement Law

    Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case Cannot Be Overturned While Facts Are Still in Contention in Related Cases

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks
    Corporate Profile


    The Clayhatchee, Alabama 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 Clayhatchee'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
    Clayhatchee, Alabama

    New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

    December 16, 2019 —
    Subcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath. The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence. Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim. Reprinted courtesy of Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie Mr. Wolf may be contacted at Mr. Jolley may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    October 07, 2019 —
    Success in construction litigation often turns less on counsel’s ability to craft legal arguments and more on counsel’s ability to gather, master and present the often complex set of facts underlying the case. In construction matters, most of the key facts are found in documents: contract documents, drawings, plans and specifications, schedules, submittals, progress reports, daily logs, change orders, invoices and payment records. Nowadays, these documents will almost certainly be created, exchanged and stored electronically; many will never exist in hard copy. As such, timely collection, organization and analysis of electronically stored information (ESI) is crucially important in construction litigation. The construction industry has always involved a large quantity of records. Today, the majority of those records exist only as ESI: Design professionals use computer-aided design (CAD) software to create construction plans. Construction managers use Primavera or similar software to create schedules and workflows. Estimators use job cost control programs. Innovative firms capture digital photos of the project, from mobilization through the punch process. Because ESI is created and exchanged at a higher rate than hard-copy documents, ESI has facilitated a dramatic increase in the volume of records associated with construction projects. Further compounding the increase is the proliferation of mobile devices. With a smartphone in every pocket, ESI creation has moved out of the home office and the site trailer and onto the site itself. As the volume of ESI expands, so too does the time and expense associated with storing, processing, reviewing and producing these records. This article will cover strategies for balancing time and expense with the requirements of the rules and the needs of the case. Reprinted courtesy of Pepper Hamilton LLP attorneys Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman and Michael I. Frankel Mr. Gallagher may be contacted at Ms. Lehman may be contacted at Mr. Frankel may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

    December 02, 2019 —
    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partner John V. O’Meara has been selected as a member of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators. This invitation resulted from a national selection process and is intended to honor the best defense attorneys in the Country. Mr. O’Meara was selected to join a group of lawyers which include past and current state bar presidents, national ABOTA Presidents, ABOTA Masters in Trial and International Academy of Trial Lawyer presidents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John O'Meara, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
    Mr. O'Meara may be contacted at

    “Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay

    August 20, 2019 —
    On May 28, 2019, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examined the phrase “based on” in an assault-and-battery exclusion, finding that the phrase means “to make, form, or serve as the foundation of any claim, demand or suit.” C.M.S. Investment Ventures, Inc. v. American European Insurance Company, No. A-2056-17T3, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1215, at *8-9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2019) (CMS). The CMS case is also notable because the Appellate Division held that a 20-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable and therefore warranted estoppel. In CMS, the insured was allegedly warned by its tenant about a faulty ground-floor window that failed to lock properly. Afterward, an intruder broke into the tenant’s apartment and sexually assaulted the tenant, who sued the insured on a premises liability claim. Before she filed suit, the tenant sought payment from the insured’s CGL insurer directly. The insurer denied coverage based on the assault-and-battery exclusion and closed the file, but never informed the insured. Later, the tenant sued the insured, which sought a defense and indemnity from its insurer, which again denied coverage based on the exclusion. The insured then sought a declaration of coverage on grounds that the exclusion was ambiguous, and the insurer “was estopped from denying coverage, because it waited [20] months to inform CMS of its coverage decision.” The trial court ruled in the insured’s favor which led to the appeal in CMS. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at Mr. Carroll may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    August 13, 2019 —
    Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Advantages of Virtual Reality in Construction

    August 20, 2019 —
    Virtual realty provides an unparalleled spatial sense for visualization at a lower cost than full-scale replicas. Today, VR is being used heavily in preconstruction to align owner expectations and educate design team stakeholders. For those already employing BIM solutions, coordination can be made much more effective by leveraging existing design models with very little added cost. As anyone who has tried a VR headset before can attest, the ability to accurately perceive spatial relationships in design cannot be replicated through traditional 2D media such as screens or paper. VR solutions also have the ability to iterate rapidly. These technologies are linked to BIM, providing real-time feedback as the design changes. This is in stark contrast to traditional full-scale mockups and offline renders, which are cumbersome and time-consuming to update with design changes. Substantial benefits without a hefty price tag Budget limitations and ROI are always a concern with emerging technology. Fortunately, VR comes cheaply with BIM production. These solutions are significantly less expensive than full-scale mockups and far more efficient when compared to longhand sequencing explanations and esoteric detailing of complex designs. Even the most elaborate VR setups are a fraction of overall construction cost, ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars depending on the level of adoption. Reprinted courtesy of Spivey Lipsey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Before Collapse, Communications Failed to Save Bridge Project

    December 30, 2019 —
    The National Transportation Safety Board’s Oct. 8 release of documents related to its FIU bridge collapse investigation raises questions but provides no definitive conclusions about why the partially built structure suddenly crashed to the ground on March 15, 2018, killing six. The last official word on the cause of the fatal collapse will have to await the agency’s final report, scheduled to be released on Oct. 22. Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

    January 13, 2020 —
    Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Squibb Bridge has 127 fewer years of existence than the borough’s iconic East River span, but the pedestrian crossing got lots of New York City attention since it was first opened in 2013 after being shut down twice—once for excessive “bounciness” and again due to rotting wood. Now its reconstruction, hopefully for good, is anything but a straightforward operation. Tom Stabile, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of