• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Jakin Georgia high-rise construction expert witness Jakin Georgia retail construction expert witness Jakin Georgia multi family housing expert witness Jakin Georgia townhome construction expert witness Jakin Georgia tract home expert witness Jakin Georgia office building expert witness Jakin Georgia concrete tilt-up expert witness Jakin Georgia Subterranean parking expert witness Jakin Georgia industrial building expert witness Jakin Georgia parking structure expert witness Jakin Georgia structural steel construction expert witness Jakin Georgia condominium expert witness Jakin Georgia casino resort expert witness Jakin Georgia low-income housing expert witness Jakin Georgia custom home expert witness Jakin Georgia custom homes expert witness Jakin Georgia hospital construction expert witness Jakin Georgia Medical building expert witness Jakin Georgia condominiums expert witness Jakin Georgia landscaping construction expert witness Jakin Georgia housing expert witness Jakin Georgia
    Jakin Georgia construction safety expertJakin Georgia expert witness commercial buildingsJakin Georgia construction cost estimating expert witnessJakin Georgia architectural engineering expert witnessJakin Georgia construction code expert witnessJakin Georgia soil failure expert witnessJakin Georgia engineering expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Jakin, Georgia

    Georgia Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 563 stipulates that prior to filing a claim, a homeowner must give the contractor 30 day written notice detailing the nature of the defect. In response, contractor must provide (within 30 days of receipt) a written reply containing an offer of settlement, requirement of inspection or rejection. The law provides definitions relating to construction; offers immunity from liability for certain conditions; and sets up an alternative dispute resolution process.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Jakin Georgia

    No state license for general contracting required. License is required for Air Conditioning, Electrical, and Plumbing trades.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Golden Isles Home Builders Association
    Local # 1135
    218 Rose Drive
    Brunswick, GA 31520
    Jakin Georgia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of South GA
    Local # 1194
    PO Box 2950
    Valdosta, GA 31603

    Jakin Georgia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Albany & SW GA Inc
    Local # 1108
    PO Box 70424
    Albany, GA 31708

    Jakin Georgia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Savannah
    Local # 1188
    7116 Hodgson Memorial Dr
    Savannah, GA 31406

    Jakin Georgia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Statesboro Home Builders Association
    Local # 1191
    1223 Merchants Way
    Statesboro, GA 30458
    Jakin Georgia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Greater Columbus Home Builders Association
    Local # 1148
    6432 Bradley Park Dr
    Columbus, GA 31904

    Jakin Georgia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association Of Warner Robins
    Local # 1196
    PO Box 8297
    Warner Robins, GA 31095

    Jakin Georgia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Jakin Georgia

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders

    2018 Construction Outlook: Mature Expansion, Deceleration in Some Sectors, Continued Growth in Others

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    Case-Shiller Redo Shows Less Severe U.S. Home-Price Slump

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

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

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist

    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    New Tariffs Could Shorten Construction Expansion Cycle

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Home Repair Firms Sued for Fraud

    IoT: Take Guessing Out of the Concrete Drying Process
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Jakin, Georgia Expert Witness Engineer Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Jakin'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
    Jakin, Georgia

    As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

    August 26, 2019 —
    In just the past few weeks, three states have used their Clean Water Act 401 authority to delay, for an indefinite period, FERC-authorized pipeline expansion projects. On May 6, 2019, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied, without prejudice, Jordan Cove’s application for a Section 401 water quality certification. Jordan Cove plans to build an LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon, if it can obtain the necessary federal and permits. Under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act, any applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity, including the operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge may originate that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, including effluent limitations and state water quality standards. The States have a “reasonable time”—which shall not exceed one year after the receipt of the 401 application—in which to act, or the state’s authority may be waived by this inaction. The Oregon DEQ concluded that Jordan Cove has not demonstrated that its project, as presently configured, will satisfy state water quality standards. The 401 applications submitted by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection were similarly rejected without prejudice on May 15, 2019 (New York) and June 5, 2019 (New Jersey). This use of the states’ 401 authority has frustrated plans to build and operate LNG pipelines around the country. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    September 30, 2019 —
    Advocates of the Keystone XL oil pipeline have won a victory in their long effort to construct the project, as the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a state commission's 2017 finding that supported the project's latest route alignment through the state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    August 13, 2019 —
    London’s Heathrow Airport intends to speed up spending on its controversial third runway, even before getting approval for the 14 billion-pound ($18 billion) project, according to the industry regulator. Europe’s busiest airport plans to boost early spending to 2.9 billion pounds, in 2014 prices, so it can stay on schedule for a planned 2026 opening, the Civil Aviation Authority said in a consultation document on its website. The costs will be incurred before the airport wins permission to build the runway, which the operator expects to happen in late 2021, according to the document. The Financial Times reported the plan earlier. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Elena Mazneva, Bloomberg

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    August 06, 2019 —
    A recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity. The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects. In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Awarded Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar

    September 30, 2019 —
    Wilke Fleury congratulates attorneys Dan Egan, Steve Williamson and David Frenznick on their inclusion in the Sacramento Business Journal 2019 Best of the Bar! The Sacramento Business Journal annually honors the region’s top attorneys after a rigorous process of selection. To be awarded the Best of the Bar, attorneys are nominated by fellow attorneys and then vetted by a panel of peers. Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury attorneys Dan Egan, Steven J. Williamson and David A. Frenznick Mr. Egan may be contacted at Mr. Williamson may be contacted at Mr. Frenznick may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    January 27, 2020 —
    A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits. One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    December 02, 2019 —
    In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted by

    Design-Assist, an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry[1]

    December 02, 2019 —
    “Design-Assist” is one of the recent cost-saving trends being touted for construction projects and, in particular, construction projects utilizing alternative procurement methods. If an internet search for the term, “design-assist” is made, the result will be numerous construction industry articles and white papers lauding “design-assist” as a recent cost-saving trend in construction procurement. From a legal perspective, however, the term “design-assist” is notably absent from court opinions and most state licensing laws. With the exception of the ConsensusDocs, few standard form contracts even include the term “design-assist” in their text. The ConsensusDocs agreement provides examples of the Constructor’s obligations to perform “assisting activities” (the term “design-assist” is not used) and states that, notwithstanding the performance of such “assisting activities” by the Constructor, the responsibility of the design remains with the Designer unless otherwise stated in the Contract:
    • Article 4.5 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL’S RESPONSIBIITIES The Designer shall furnish or provide all design and engineering services necessary to design the Project in accordance with the Owner’s objectives … the Designer shall draw upon the assistance of Constructor and others in developing the design, but the Designer shall retain overall responsibility for all design decisions….
    • Article 4.6 CONSTRUCTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES [T]he Constructor shall assist the Designer in the development of the Project Plan and Project Design but shall not provide professional services which constitute the practice of architecture or engineering unless the Constructor needs to provide such services in order to carry out its responsibilities … or unless specifically called for by the Contract Documents.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at