• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Cottonwood Alabama condominium expert witness Cottonwood Alabama parking structure expert witness Cottonwood Alabama custom home expert witness Cottonwood Alabama multi family housing expert witness Cottonwood Alabama institutional building expert witness Cottonwood Alabama office building expert witness Cottonwood Alabama tract home expert witness Cottonwood Alabama casino resort expert witness Cottonwood Alabama high-rise construction expert witness Cottonwood Alabama hospital construction expert witness Cottonwood Alabama industrial building expert witness Cottonwood Alabama production housing expert witness Cottonwood Alabama low-income housing expert witness Cottonwood Alabama concrete tilt-up expert witness Cottonwood Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Cottonwood Alabama Medical building expert witness Cottonwood Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Cottonwood Alabama retail construction expert witness Cottonwood Alabama housing expert witness Cottonwood Alabama custom homes expert witness Cottonwood Alabama condominiums expert witness Cottonwood Alabama
    Cottonwood Alabama construction expert testimonyCottonwood Alabama soil failure expert witnessCottonwood Alabama expert witnesses fenestrationCottonwood Alabama construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessCottonwood Alabama building consultant expertCottonwood Alabama contractor expert witnessCottonwood Alabama construction expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Cottonwood, 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 Cottonwood Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Dothan & Wiregrass Area
    Local # 0132
    PO Box 9791
    Dothan, AL 36304
    Cottonwood Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Enterprise Home Builders Association
    Local # 0133
    PO Box 310861
    Enterprise, AL 36331
    Cottonwood Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Metro Mobile Inc
    Local # 0156
    1613 University Blvd S
    Mobile, AL 36609

    Cottonwood Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Baldwin County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0184
    916 PLantation Blvd
    Fairhope, AL 36532

    Cottonwood Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    South Alabama Home Builders Association
    Local # 0102
    PO Box 190
    Greenville, AL 36037
    Cottonwood Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alabama
    Local # 0100
    PO Box 241305
    Montgomery, AL 36124

    Cottonwood Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Cottonwood Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Cottonwood Alabama

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision


    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Rise Most in Four Years

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

    Recent Bribery and Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in Global Construction Industry

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

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion

    The ARC and The Covenants

    It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Delaware River Interstate Bridge Shut to Assess Truss Fracture

    Happenings in and around the 2016 West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    You Can Now Build a Multi-Million Dollar Home via Your iPad

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?

    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?
    Corporate Profile


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

    COVID-19 Information and Resources

    May 04, 2020 —
    INTRODUCTION The current COVID-19 health crisis has greatly impacted nearly every aspect of our business and personal lives. The constant flow of rapidly evolving, and often contradictory information creates its own challenges for those who are responsible for ensuring compliance with relevant regulations and best practices while still moving forward with their business and family activities. This bulletin differs from most Chapman, Glucksman, Dean & Roeb bulletins in that it does not highlight a recent case, statute or a single development, but rather acts as a resource and “links” to provide you with needed information and to simplify your search for critical information during this unusual and challenging time. CIVIL LITIGATION: CLOSURES AND RESTRICTIONS The State and Federal Court systems in California have drastically reduced their operations. The Governor issued Executive Order N-38-20, this suspends certain limitations on the Chief Justice’s authority, making it possible for orders to be issued adapting the Court’s operations to address the COVID-19 health crisis. As of this time, the most recent statewide order from the Chief Justice is the March 30, 2020 Order which allows Courts to utilize remote technology when possible. The March 30, 2020 Order also clarifies a prior Order suspending all trials for 60 days. As many of you are aware, civil trials in California must commence within five years of the initiation of the action, this is commonly referred to as the “five year rule”. While the five year time period was initially extended by the Chief Justice for 60 days, the Judicial Council subsequently adopted a series of Emergency Rules, including one which extends this to six months for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020. The Judicial Council also adopted rules tolling the statutes of limitation for civil causes of action are tolled from April 6, 2020 to 90 days after the state of emergency has ended. In addition to the statewide orders and rules, counties have enacted their own rules. Los Angeles Superior Court, for instance, has closed some locations while others remain open on a limited basis. On March 17, 2020 an Order was issued limiting the Court to “essential functions” through April 16, 2020. However, on April 15, 2020, a further Order extended the closure through May 12, 2020. While truly urgent Ex Partes may go forward, all regularly set hearings will be continued until after June 22, 2020. Trials will begin after June 22, 2020 with non-priority trials anticipated to start in later August or September. Notably, any deadlines imposed by current trial or hearing dates still stand until the specific dates are continued. As with other aspects of the COVID-19 health crisis, the impact upon Civil Litigation continues to evolve, for the most up to date information we include the following links to the California Courts. The first page includes links to all the State and County Orders, the second page is for the Judicial Council Rules. Links: STATE AND LOCAL STAY AT HOME ORDERS The State of California declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020. On March 13, 2020 the President declared a national state of emergency. On March 19, 2020 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20, also known as the “Stay at Home” order. This orders all Californian’s to stay at home, unless they are part of an essential businesses are exempt which generally includes construction and insurance. Generally, Californians are allowed to run essential errands, but they are not to congregate with those outside of their household. In addition to the State, many cities and counties have enacted additional orders regarding whether certain types of businesses can remain open, use of parks, trails and other public amenities as well as what type of protective measures must be adhered to such as covering your face in public. As with Civil Litigation, the State and Local Government regulations continue to evolve. A link to the State’s COVID-19 page is below and we also encourage you to check your local City and County sites for additional information. BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL GUIDELINES The impact of COVID-19 is unprecedented. While “essential businesses” may remain open for customers, steps must be taken to protect the health of both employees and customers. There are both State and, in many instances, Local Government regulations addressing these precautions. In addition to taking safety measures to protect the health of all involved, there are a multitude of financial concerns to be addressed. While most people have already heard about the moratorium on residential and commercial evictions, this does little to address how property owners will receive funds to pay their financial obligations, how tenants can pay their other obligations, how either can make payroll and most importantly, how employees who can no longer work due to their “non-essential” business being closed can put food on their tables. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES” act) may provide financial relief for many business by means of loans, some of which may be forgivable, and tax credits. The CARES act also modifies the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to provide paid leave for those who cannot work due to COVID-19 as well as other benefits. The IRS has extended the deadline to file and pay taxes to July 15, 2020. Additionally, there are other Federal and State benefits which may be available for those whose jobs are impacted. The financial impacts of COVID-19 are far reaching and continue to evolve. The Department of Insurance ordered insurance companies to return premiums for at least the months of March and April. This applies to certain lines of insurance where the risk of loss has fallen substantially. However, business interruption, environmental and pollution claims have increased exponentially. While most such policies require some physical damage in order to trigger an occurrence, there has been some discussion of legislation deeming the COVID-19 pandemic to fulfill the physical damage requirement. If your business has been closed or impacted by COVID-19 we encourage you to review your insurance policies and key contracts to ascertain what your rights and obligations are as well as whether you may have any coverage for your losses. Just as importantly, speak with your business partners including vendors, customers and employees to ascertain their capabilities and willingness to work through this crisis. US Department of Labor OSHA Guidelines: California Labor & Workforce Development Agency Resource Page: California Employment Development Department: CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Many of our clients are involved in the construction industry. Construction has been deemed an essential activity and is exempt from many of the “stay at home” orders but certain protections and regulations still apply. In addition to the general workplace guidelines discussed above certain jurisdictions are providing guidance as to how to provide a safe construction site workplace. We have included a link the Los Angeles Department Building and Safety guidelines below. However, in some instances work on a project may be delayed or may not be able to progress due to the project owner stopping work or the inability of subcontractors or suppliers to continue as originally intended. In this case one should review their contracts to see what justifies delay and inability to perform by either party and the impact thereof. Contracts should also be evaluated to ascertain whether the costs associated with compliance with the new COVID-19 regulations are a recoverable cost under the contract. As with the general business discussion above, contractors should review all available insurance, including builder’s risk to ascertain the existence of possible coverage. LA DBS guidelines: SUMMARY The COVID-19 health crisis has had and, for the foreseeable future, will have a broad and severe impact on our society. The variety of evolving regulations on the Federal, State and Local Government levels make it challenging to comply, especially for businesses in operation. There are also a variety of resources available to help ensure compliance with these regulations as well as the financial and physical viability of our communities’ companies and employees. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need any assistance in navigating these rules and resources. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb and Brian D. Kahn, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at Mr. Kahn may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance

    April 27, 2020 —
    In a prior post, we predicted that novel coronavirus (COVID-19) risks could implicate D&O and similar management liability coverage arising from so-called “event-driven” litigation, a new kind of securities class action that relies on specific adverse events, rather than fraudulent financial disclosures or accounting issues, as the catalyst for targeting both companies and their directors and officers for the resulting drop in stock price. It appears that ship has sailed, so to speak, as Kevin LaCroix at D&O Diary reported over the weekend that a plaintiff shareholder had filed a securities class action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. alleging that the company employed misleading sales tactics related to the outbreak. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise line made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose in its securities filings sales tactics by the company that purported to provide customers with unproven or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice customers to purchase cruises. Those allegations rely on two news articles reporting on the company sales practices in the wake of COVID-19: a March 11, 2020 Miami New Times article quoting leaked emails in which a cruise employee reportedly asked sales staff to lie to customers about COVID-19 to protect the company’s bookings; and a March 12, 2020 Washington Post article entitled, “Norwegian Cruise Line Managers Urged Salespeople to Spread Falsehoods about Coronavirus.” The lawsuit alleges that the company’s share price was cut nearly in half following these disclosures. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Geoffrey B. Fehling Ms. Masters may be contacted at Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Fehling may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    July 13, 2020 —
    On May 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided three significant environmental law cases. Two of these cases involved whether global warming tort cases could be brought in California state courts on, for example, a public nuisance claim, and whether the defendant energy companies had the right to have them removed to the federal courts. County of San Mateo, et al. v. Chevron Corp., et al. and City of Oakland v. BP PLC, et al. While acknowledging the immensity of the legal issues, the Ninth Circuit held that the federal removal statutes did not permit these cases to be removed to the federal courts. For one thing, state court jurisdiction was not preempted by the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the ruling of Federal Judge Chhabria in the Chevron case, and vacated Judge Alsup’s ruling in the BP case that he had jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to federal common law, and then to dismiss it. The court also remanded the case to Judge Alsup, and directed him to determine if there was an “alternate basis” for federal court jurisdiction based on the pleadings that an issue of ”navigable waters” was a concern. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    April 27, 2020 —
    Courts often struggle with the question of when the statute of repose starts to run for construction projects that involve multiple buildings or phases. In Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass’n v. Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC, 937 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 2020) (Village Lofts), the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed how Minnesota’s 10-year statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, applies to claims arising from the construction of a condominium complex. The court held that the statute of repose begins to run at different times for: a) statutory residential warranty claims brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 327A.01 to 327A.08, et. seq.; and b) common law claims arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of the condominium buildings. As stated in Village Lofts, Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC (Housing Partners) developed the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls, a condominium complex consisting of Building A and Building B. Housing Partners retained Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (Kraus-Anderson) as the general contractor for Building A. Kraus-Anderson retained Elness Sweeney Graham Architects, Inc. (ESG), Doody Mechanical, Inc. (Doody) and Kenneth S. Kendle, P.E. (Kendle) to work on Building A. In September 2002, the City of Minneapolis (City) issued a partial certificate of occupancy (CO) for Building A, including the building’s public spaces. On October 4, 2002, Housing Partners filed the declaration creating the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls condominium, to be operated by Village Lofts at St. Anthony Association (Village Lofts Association). On October 10, 2002, Housing Partners sold the first unit in Building A and in November of 2003, the City issued a CO for the entire building, excluding two units. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at

    Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    July 06, 2020 —
    Haight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi who were selected to the 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Each year no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    September 07, 2020 —
    As anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me. One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land. In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    August 03, 2020 —
    This year’s Colorado State Legislative session was cut short. However, in the period of time Colorado’s Legislature was in session, it passed and evaluated important legislation for Colorado homebuilders. This article highlights relevant legislation for Colorado homebuilders. 1. HB 20-1155 This Bill creates new requirements on new homebuilders to offer renewable energy systems to the buyer of a new home. Specifically, the Bill requires homebuilders to offer each of the following:
    • A solar panel system, a solar thermal system, or both;
    • Prewiring or pre-plumbing for the above solar systems; and,
    • A chase or conduit for future installation of such systems.
    The Bill further requires Colorado homebuilders to offer homebuyers one of the following:
    • An electric vehicle charging system;
    • Prewiring for the future installation for such a system; or,
    • A plug-in receptacle in a place accessible to a vehicle parking area.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at

    How to Build Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure

    July 20, 2020 —
    Ohio University has released a guide titled, An Engineer’s Guide to Building Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure. It was created for engineers, environmentalists, climate change communities, and construction organizations who are looking to share information about the importance of building cities that are able to fight growing climate threats. Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of