• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Anchorage Alaska hospital construction building expert Anchorage Alaska mid-rise construction building expert Anchorage Alaska Medical building building expert Anchorage Alaska concrete tilt-up building expert Anchorage Alaska tract home building expert Anchorage Alaska townhome construction building expert Anchorage Alaska housing building expert Anchorage Alaska custom homes building expert Anchorage Alaska landscaping construction building expert Anchorage Alaska Subterranean parking building expert Anchorage Alaska custom home building expert Anchorage Alaska condominium building expert Anchorage Alaska structural steel construction building expert Anchorage Alaska production housing building expert Anchorage Alaska industrial building building expert Anchorage Alaska parking structure building expert Anchorage Alaska casino resort building expert Anchorage Alaska low-income housing building expert Anchorage Alaska high-rise construction building expert Anchorage Alaska institutional building building expert Anchorage Alaska multi family housing building expert Anchorage Alaska
    Anchorage Alaska construction scheduling expert witnessAnchorage Alaska hospital construction expert witnessAnchorage Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessAnchorage Alaska testifying construction expert witnessAnchorage Alaska expert witnesses fenestrationAnchorage Alaska construction forensic expert witnessAnchorage Alaska construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Anchorage, 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.

    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anchorage Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Alaska
    Local # 0200
    8301 Schoon St Ste 200
    Anchorage, AK 99518

    Anchorage Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Anchorage Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Anchorage Alaska

    Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term

    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    What Does “Mold Resistant” Really Mean?

    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Decrease on Fewer Investors

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim

    Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

    California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force Continues to Set Fire to the Underground Economy

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Hawaii Bill Preserves Insurance Coverage in Lava Zones

    Neighbors Fight to Halt Construction after Asbestos found on Property

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    My Construction Law Wish List

    Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Top 10 Lessons Learned from a Construction Attorney

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    Testing Your Nail Knowledge

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    A Duty to Design and Maintain Reasonably Safe Roadways Extends to All Persons. (WA)
    Corporate Profile


    The Anchorage, Alaska Building Expert 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Anchorage'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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Anchorage, Alaska

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    September 10, 2018 —
    The tragedy of modern Italy, so beautiful yet so decrepit, can be told through its bridges. Italians love to point to the Romans as the first engineers – the country boasts some of the world’s oldest viaducts. It’s a source of national pride that blinded the nation to the reality of today, where decades of neglect led to a moment of reckoning. The collapse of the Morandi bridge in Genoa, leaving 43 dead, was followed by the usual mud-slinging, including within a tenuous ruling coalition and more importantly, to soul-searching. Meant to last 100 years, the bridge was hated more than loved – everyone who crossed it felt unsafe. Reprinted courtesy of Flavia Krause-Jackson, Bloomberg and Kathleen Hunter, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado’s Three-Bill Approach to Alleged Construction Defect Issues

    May 01, 2014 —
    According to the Denver Post, two Colorado construction defect bills have “made their way out of the Senate Affairs Committee Wednesday, with a third reportedly on its way.” The two bills that have made it out of committee are SB 219 and SB 216: “SB 219 would require the Colorado Division of Housing to prepare a study to present to legislators before March 15, 2015, on why there isn't more affordable housing construction in the state,” the Denver Post reported. “SB 216 directs the Colorado Division of Housing to design a program to rebate a portion of the insurance premiums builders pay as a way to boost their willingness to build more projects.” However, a third bill would require “homeowners to pursue arbitration or mediation before litigation.” All three bills are sponsored by Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, D-Commerce City. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    August 17, 2017 —
    AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at Ms. Zwart may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    April 15, 2015 —
    Guided by federal case law, on March 31, 2015 a Delaware state court held for the first time in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Services LLC that a builder’s poor workmanship is not an occurrence for which the builder’s insurance policy affords coverage. In the underlying case giving rise to the coverage dispute, a homeowner alleged that a builder deviated from approved building plans, used inadequate materials, improperly installed materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that a home was properly constructed. The homeowner sued the builder under theories of negligence, negligence per se, and fraud. The insurer denied the builder’s request for defense and indemnification for the homeowner’s claims, citing in part that the allegations of defective workmanship did not qualify as an “occurrence” as defined by the builder’s insurance policy. The builder did not dispute that the underlying complaint alleged defective workmanship. However, the builder asserted that because it had not yet been proven that its work was defective, the insurer had prematurely denied coverage. The court properly rejected the builder’s argument, and reiterated that under Delaware law the court must compare the allegations of the complaint to the insurance policy terms to make a coverage determination. Whether the complaint’s allegations are ultimately meritorious is irrelevant to the initial coverage determination according to the court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Casarino may be contacted at

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    August 17, 2017 —
    Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    April 03, 2013 —
    The southern New York town of Liberty has settled a lawsuit filed by the contractor with an agreement that the school district will pay an additional $1.1 million. Darlind Construction of LaGrangeville, New York had alleged that “errors, omissions, and other defects” in the plans provided to them required additional work. The school project had previously cost the town about $36 million. Darlind Construction’s initial claim had been for $1.6 million. Funds for the settlement will come from monies appropriated for the project, most of which were contributed by the State of New York. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

    July 16, 2014 —
    Fox 28 news reported that “[t]he state of Ohio is going to spend more than $166,000 to inspect…the 40-year-old Rhodes Tower” in Columbus. "They're going to look at the exterior of the building - [at] sealants between the joints, the condition of the panels, the window systems, how they're draining, how they're operating, and how they're sealed," Ned Thiell, of Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, told ABC 6/FOX 28 news. A study completed last year declared there were “’deficiencies’ on the building’s stone covering” and there were “panels with severe fracture defects” that “will need to be replaced with new stone panels.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    October 29, 2014 —
    A building boom that transformed Miami into a destination for the global elite left out the city core, better known for its empty lots filled at night with tents for the homeless. Now the area awaits a $2 billion face lift. Worldcenter, a 27-acre (11-hectare) development that languished for almost a decade, won city approval last month and is slated to break ground next year near Miami’s business district. The project will include almost 1,000 luxury condominiums and apartments, a Marriott Marquis hotel with convention space, and stores such as Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s. Developers CIM Group, Falcone Group and Centurion Partners are seeking to breathe life into a neighborhood often referred to as the “hole in the doughnut,” an area of blight and weedy lots surrounded by luxury properties that are attracting South American, European and Asian buyers. Its revival reflects both the strong investor demand in Miami and a national trend toward a mix of real estate in an urban center catering to people who want to live, work and play in close proximity. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
    Ms. Brandt may be contacted at