• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska retail construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska custom homes expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska parking structure expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska tract home expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska condominium expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska office building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska Medical building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska production housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska low-income housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska institutional building expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska Subterranean parking expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska multi family housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska condominiums expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska concrete tilt-up expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska hospital construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska structural steel construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska housing expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska high-rise construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska casino resort expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska townhome construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska mid-rise construction expert witness Fort Yukon Alaska
    Fort Yukon Alaska expert witness concrete failureFort Yukon Alaska contractor expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska construction project management expert witnessesFort Yukon Alaska construction claims expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska concrete expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska engineering expert witnessFort Yukon Alaska fenestration expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Fort Yukon, 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 Fort Yukon 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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Fort Yukon Alaska Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Fort Yukon Alaska

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?

    Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    New Stormwater Climate Change Tool

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage

    Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Foreclosures Decreased Nationally in September

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    Carbon Monoxide Injuries Caused by One Occurrence

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    DOJ to Prosecute Philadelphia Roofing Company for Worker’s Death

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Special Events

    Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

    Legislative Update – The CSLB’s Study Under SB465
    Corporate Profile


    The Fort Yukon, 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 this considerable body of 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
    Fort Yukon, Alaska

    Effects of Amendment to Florida's Statute of Repose on the Products Completed Operations Hazard

    November 06, 2018 —
    Recent amendments to Florida’s Statute of Repose have resulted in concerns as to the scope of risk Florida homebuilders face as a result, and the availability of insurance coverage for such exposures. Previously, the statute provided for a strict, yet straightforward 10-year limitation for latent construction defect claims. Under that language, issues arose when suits were filed near expiration of the statute, because parties seeking to defend claims were given little time to effectively assert related claims. The amendment to the statute serves to lengthen the statute of repose to 11 years for certain cross-claims, compulsory counterclaims, and third-party claims, and in limited circumstances, potentially even longer. Most policies in the Florida marketplace serve to limit coverage under the products-completed operations hazard (“PCO”) to 10 years, and thus, in very limited circumstances, an insured contractor may be exposed to third-party claims under the revised statute. It is important to note, however, that coverage under most CGL policies is occurrence-based, meaning that the policy is triggered by property damage that occurs during the policy period, and therefore, any subsequent claims permitted under the amended statute will necessarily relate to the original property damage that occurred during the 10-year period, and thus, would be covered under the standard 10-year PCO extension. This paper will analyze the anticipated effect of the amendments upon coverage under a 10-year PCO extension. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. and Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    October 09, 2018 —
    On August 10, 2018, the Florida Court of Appeals for the Second District upheld a trial court’s dismissal of an insurance company’s intervention in a tort lawsuit brought against its insured for the purposes of submitting special interrogatories and verdict forms. In Houston Specialty Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11197, 2018 WL 3795785 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 10, 2018), the insured, All Florida Weatherproofing and Construction, Inc. (“All Florida”) provided pressure washing, roof coating, and other roof-related services. Houston Specialty issued a general liability policy to All Florida. In 2012, a worker fell off a roof while applying protective coating on behalf of All Florida. The worker and his family sued All Florida in connection with the worker’s injuries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy Macklin, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    December 04, 2018 —
    Back in February, I discussed a case relating to indemnity and ambiguity. The opinion in that case, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al., allowed a breach of contract and indemnity claim to move forward despite the fact that conflicting term sheets between the plaintiff and defendant could have been read to violate Virginia law by requiring indemnity for English’s own negligence. In other words, the ambiguity worked in English’s favor (though that is not something to count on). The Court did not however address whether there was any negligence on English’s part and if there was, what was the contractual effect. I’ll bet you were wondering what happened later in that case. Well, here’s the answer. In a subsequent opinion, the Court looked at the same ambiguous and conflicting term sheets between and among those defendants that were required to provide quality assurance services for the construction of a bridge in western Virginia. For the full procedural and factual analysis, be sure to read the full memorandum opinion linked above. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

    September 04, 2018 —
    In Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. BrassCraft Mfg., Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88986 (D.R.I. May 29, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island addressed the question of whether the defendant was so unfairly prejudiced by the subrogating insurer’s spoliation of evidence that dismissal of the plaintiff’s case was the appropriate Rule 37(b)(2)(a)(i)-(vi) sanction. The court, focusing on the potential for undue prejudice to the defendant, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at

    Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

    August 28, 2018 —
    With construction ramping up in many markets, construction firms plan to hire more workers, indicating the industry's continued optimism about a healthy economy. It's news that is both exciting and perhaps a little daunting: hiring competent, qualified tradespeople is challenging under any conditions. No one wants to hire a poor employee—or worse, someone who turns out to be a thief. While no industry is immune to occupational fraud, the construction industry is one of the harder hit. The average construction fraud scheme costs business owners $227,000 before it is detected. Worse, the fraudster is very often someone the employer implicitly trusts, making it even harder to believe the company has been the victim of insider theft. Fraud can hurt a business's reputation, cost thousands and betray trust. It may seem uncontrollable and unforeseeable unless employers know how to detect and deter fraudulent behavior. Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Couch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Couch may be contacted at

    Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

    October 23, 2018 —
    Many general contractors and property management companies hand over project sites to subcontractors and have little, if anything, to do with the construction work that occurs. However, under RCW 49.17, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), general contractors and some property management companies/owners are still responsible for workplace safety for the employees of their subcontractors and independent contractors. The Washington Supreme Court held in Stute v. PBMC that a general contractor could be held liable for injury to a subcontractor’s employee sustained as a result of a WISHA violation.[1] The Stute decision changed the landscape of workplace safety, imposing an expansive, per se liability on general contractors for workplace injuries. Stated differently, general contractors have a specific, non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with WISHA regulations, which extends to all employees on the project site.[2] Washington courts have held that such “expansive liability is justified because ‘a general contractor’s supervisory authority is per se control over the workplace.’”[3] Thus, the non-delegable duty requires general contractors to ensure care is exercised by anyone, even an independent contractor to whom the performance of the duty is entrusted. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ceslie Blass, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Blass may be contacted at

    Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

    September 10, 2018 —
    Wendel Rosen’s very own Matt Graham has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 in the area of Construction Law. First published in 1983, Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    September 04, 2018 —
    In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.” Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Bassett may be contacted at