• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Hartford Alabama structural steel construction expert witness Hartford Alabama Subterranean parking expert witness Hartford Alabama landscaping construction expert witness Hartford Alabama Medical building expert witness Hartford Alabama industrial building expert witness Hartford Alabama tract home expert witness Hartford Alabama condominium expert witness Hartford Alabama mid-rise construction expert witness Hartford Alabama custom home expert witness Hartford Alabama parking structure expert witness Hartford Alabama casino resort expert witness Hartford Alabama hospital construction expert witness Hartford Alabama concrete tilt-up expert witness Hartford Alabama low-income housing expert witness Hartford Alabama production housing expert witness Hartford Alabama condominiums expert witness Hartford Alabama multi family housing expert witness Hartford Alabama custom homes expert witness Hartford Alabama retail construction expert witness Hartford Alabama townhome construction expert witness Hartford Alabama office building expert witness Hartford Alabama
    Hartford Alabama forensic architectHartford Alabama expert witness roofingHartford Alabama building consultant expertHartford Alabama construction project management expert witnessHartford Alabama engineering expert witnessHartford Alabama structural concrete expertHartford Alabama construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Hartford, 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 Hartford 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
    Hartford Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

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

    Hartford Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Hartford Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

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

    Hartford Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Hartford Alabama Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Hartford Alabama

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Denver Council Committee Approves Construction Defects Ordinance

    Charges in Kansas Water Park Death

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

    DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    Home Prices Up, Inventory Down

    Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

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

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    A Special CDJ Thanksgiving Edition

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

    Policyholders' Coverage Checklist in Times of Coronavirus

    Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    California Contractors – You Should Know That Section 7141.5 May Be Your Golden Ticket
    Corporate Profile


    The Hartford, Alabama 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
    Hartford, Alabama

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    August 31, 2020 —
    Maine’s Supreme Court cleared the way for construction to begin on the nearly $1-billion, 145-mile high voltage transmission line that will feed hydroelectric power from Quebec into the New England power grid. Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    June 29, 2020 —
    On June 5, 2020, the President signed into law the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, amending portions of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Most importantly, the PPP Flexibility Act adjusted the forgiveness requirements for PPP loans. The CARES Act allowed borrowers to apply for forgiveness of loan amounts used for payroll and other covered costs during an eight-week period beginning on the date of origination, or by June 30, 2020, whichever came first. The CARES Act also allowed borrowers to use the loan funds by June 30 to restore employee and payroll levels that had been reduced as a result of COVID-19. The Small Business Administration instructed borrowers that at least 75% of the loan funds had to be used to cover payroll costs during the covered period to be eligible for forgiveness. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob W. Scott, Smith Currie
    Mr. Scott may be contacted at

    Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

    June 15, 2020 —
    Those of you in the construction industry know that the two primary statutes of limitation are the 4-year year statute of limitations for patent defects and 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects. Both statutes begin to run on “substantial completion.” In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court of San Diego, Case No. D076264 (January 22, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether the term “substantial completion,” as used in Civil Code section 941, which applies to residential construction, can be defined by the parties’ contract and applied to third-parties. The Hensel Phelps Case Hensel Phelps Construction Co. entered into a prime construction contract with the owner and developer of a mixed-use project in San Diego. Hensel Phelps was the general contractor on the project. The project included a residential condominium tower which would eventually be managed and maintained by Smart Corner Owners Association. Smart Corners was not a party to the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    April 27, 2020 —
    As more states, counties and cities call on non-essential businesses to shut down to help ease the effects of the coronavirus pandemic, design professionals already see major workload impacts from the economic slowdown, according to three new association surveys of members and one of CEOs by a financial consulting firm. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    June 22, 2020 —
    This weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings is a real treat. Sara Sweeney is a registered architect, LEED AP and GreenFaith Fellow in religious environmental leadership. Her 18-year architectural career reflects her passion and commitment to sustainable building design and stewardship of our natural environment. She is the founder of EcoVision LLC, a solutions-based research and consulting firm, grounded in sustainable design practices, environmental stewardship, and building science. Dude Every so often I come across a word that drives me nuts. A few years ago it was ‘Dude.’ Lately, it is ‘LEEDigation.’ It’s a new term to “describe green building litigation” coined by Chris Cheatham, a fine person and very knowledgeable attorney in construction law and a LEED AP as well. Per his definition, LEEDigation “could involve disputes arising from green building certification, could arise if a project fails to obtain government incentives or satisfy mandates for green building construction, or could simply result from improperly designed or constructed green building strategies. It all makes sense. So why does it drive me nuts? Round Peg. Square Hole. Although I fully understand why the term was coined, such a term keeps us in flat world, that is, the world of conventional design and construction. Designing and building to LEED standards, or rather, just designing and building sustainably in general, whether to meet a third party standard or not, is a different way than what we have been used to. Period. Whereas our conventional way is focused on first costs, and sees the building more as a commodity than the human imprint and legacy on Earth, sustainable design and building is a process which, at its best, considers the economic impacts of NOT building responsibly. It is a more holistic way of building and balances long-term costs and implications with short term costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    August 24, 2020 —
    In prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed. Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

    September 07, 2020 —
    In a victory for policyholders, the Sixth Circuit affirmed that a landlord’s insurer owed a duty to defend the landlord in a bodily injury claim arising out of a fire that killed three and injured one. The Court held that the insurer breached its duty to defend and was bound to the insured’s $3 million consented judgment. Transition Investments LLC, an owner of three properties in the Detroit area, purchased a general liability insurance policy with Hamilton Specialty Insurance Company to insure its properties. At one of the properties, a faulty stove started a fire, destroying the building, injuring one person and killing three others. The estates of the deceased and the injured party sued Transition in Michigan state court. In their complaint, the plaintiffs contended that Transition failed to provide a habitable premise and neglected to maintain the property’s stove, which allegedly caused the fire. The plaintiffs argued that Transition’s negligent maintenance of the property led to the fire and the resulting injuries. Transition subsequently tendered the claim to Hamilton. Hamilton claimed that the insurance policy did not cover the fire’s damages and refused to participate in the state court litigation. Ultimately, Transitions entered into a consent judgment with the plaintiffs for $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Janie Reilly Eddy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Pepe may be contacted at Ms. Eddy 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