• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Anvik Alaska production housing building expert Anvik Alaska high-rise construction building expert Anvik Alaska retail construction building expert Anvik Alaska concrete tilt-up building expert Anvik Alaska custom home building expert Anvik Alaska industrial building building expert Anvik Alaska condominiums building expert Anvik Alaska landscaping construction building expert Anvik Alaska parking structure building expert Anvik Alaska multi family housing building expert Anvik Alaska institutional building building expert Anvik Alaska mid-rise construction building expert Anvik Alaska housing building expert Anvik Alaska Subterranean parking building expert Anvik Alaska casino resort building expert Anvik Alaska Medical building building expert Anvik Alaska structural steel construction building expert Anvik Alaska townhome construction building expert Anvik Alaska condominium building expert Anvik Alaska tract home building expert Anvik Alaska hospital construction building expert Anvik Alaska
    Anvik Alaska building consultant expertAnvik Alaska construction expertsAnvik Alaska ada design expert witnessAnvik Alaska slope failure expert witnessAnvik Alaska soil failure expert witnessAnvik Alaska consulting general contractorAnvik Alaska construction cost estimating expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Anvik, 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 Anvik Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Anvik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Anvik Alaska

    New York Public Library’s “Most Comprehensive Renovation” In Its History

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.

    After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again

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

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

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

    Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

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

    How Machine Learning Can Help with Urban Development

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    What Does “Mold Resistant” Really Mean?

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

    Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

    Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    “To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    DEP Plan to Deal with Noxious Landfill Fumes Met with Criticism

    CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Protect Against Design Errors With Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Coverage

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    Arizona Court of Appeals Awards Attorneys’ Fees in Quiet-Title Action

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    Good Ole Duty to Defend
    Corporate Profile


    The Anvik, 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 Anvik'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
    Anvik, Alaska

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    October 19, 2017 —
    The University of Central Florida (UCF) filed suit over alleged construction defects of their 45,000-seat arena including the claim of “premature wear of the steel,” spokesman Chad Binette stated, according to the Orlando Sentinel. Bid documents suggest that rust may be an issue. UCF recently sought contractors for “Stadium Emergency Rust Repairs.” The Orlando Sentinel reported that the university stated “the word ‘emergency’ reflects deadlines for the football season instead of safety concerns.” Other documents also claimed ongoing rust remediation. The UCF stadium had earned the nickname “Bounce House” from the arena “subtly swaying as fans jumped together to the song ‘Kernkraft 400’ by Zombie Nation. UCF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2008 stiffening the underpinnings of the stadium by bolting additional steel to about 160 beams,” according to the Orlando Sentinel. Officials claim that the stadium was never unsafe. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    October 02, 2013 —
    Homeowners sometimes aren’t too clear on questions of “building codes, permit process or where to find the right materials,” according to Benoni Mocanu, the owner of MB Development. He’s ready to step in an help by offering construction consulting to homeowners doing their own remodeling projects. In addition to providing the advice to help them through their projects, they’re ready to step in if a homeowner finds that they can’t finish the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

    May 10, 2013 —
    On May 19, 2010, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined construction defect claims did not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy.Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) ("Group Builders I"). The appeal in Group Builders I, however, only addressed the duty to indemnify. The ICA has now issued a second decision (unpublished), holding that there is was duty to defend Group Builders on the construction defect claims under Hawaii law, based upon the policy language and the allegations in the underlying complaint. Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw.App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013). The underlying suit involved allegations by Hilton Hotels Corp. that Group Builders, a subcontractor working on an addition to the hotel, was responsible for mold found after completion of the project. Hilton alleged that the "design, construction, installation, and/or selection of the . . . building exterior wall finish . . . did not provide an adequate air and/or moisture barriers." The counts alleged against Group Builders included breach of contract and negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    March 26, 2014 —
    Purchases (ETSLTOTL) of previously owned homes in the U.S. declined in February to the lowest level since July 2012, a sign the industry may be slow to recover. Contract closings on existing properties fell 0.4 percent to a 4.6 million annual rate, matching the median projection in a Bloomberg survey, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed today in Washington. Prices rose 9.1 percent from a year earlier, the group said. The slowdown in sales since the middle of last year reflects a pickup in borrowing costs, declining affordability and, more recently, bad weather. Faster job growth that generates bigger income gains are needed to spur demand and allow housing to contribute more to the economy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chandra may be contacted at

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    May 07, 2015 —
    The federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015). Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs. In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    April 10, 2019 —
    A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    February 02, 2017 —
    Nina Agabian, a retired director of research in global health science at the University of California, bought a 29th-floor apartment in San Francisco’s Millennium Tower in 2010. “It was supposed to be a wonderful building,” she said in January, sitting in a leather chair in the building’s vast, low-lit, owner's-club level. “For many of us, who left our business lives to start our older years, this had become a nice, comfortable place.” The building, which opened in 2008 and was touted as the most luxurious tower in San Francisco, became a beacon of the city’s burgeoning wealth, attracting tech millionaires, venture capitalists, and even the San Francisco 49ers retired quarterback Joe Montana. The 58-story tower's shine faded on May 10, 2016, when Agabian attended a homeowners association meeting and was informed that the building had sunk 16 inches into the earth and tilted over 15 inches at its tip and 2 inches at the base, according to suits filed by residents and the city of San Francisco. “You can imagine how distressed we were to know that, for one, our lifetime investment and savings are at risk,” she said. “And we have no idea whether or not there’s a fix to it, and if there is a fix to it, what it will entail.” Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Kartikay Mehrotra, Bloomberg Mr. Tarmy may be followed on Twitter @jstarmy Mr. Mehrotra may be followed on Twitter @kartikaym Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

    September 17, 2018 —
    I have spoken often about mechanic’s liens and the implications of such liens as they relate to bankruptcy here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Loudoun County, Virginia added another wrinkle to this discussion, that of standing and what happens on conveyance of the property and what interest in the property is required to allow a party to seek removal of the mechanic’s lien. In Leesburg Bldg. P’rs LLC v. Mike Berger Inc. the Loudoun County Circuit Court faced the following scenario. Leesburg Building Partners developed certain condominiums and hired Lansdowne Construction to perform the work as general contractor and paid Landsdowne in full for the work. Lansdowne hired Mike Berger, Inc. (“MBI”) to perform concrete work for the project. Landsdowne didn’t pay MBI approximately $48,000.00 and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. MBI, seeking to protect it’s interest in the money it was owed, recorded a mechanic’s lien on the property. Leesburg Building Partners filed an action to declare the lien invalid and have it removed from the property based upon its “payment defense” and the fact that it had paid Landsdowne in full. A relatively simple scenario and one that has been discussed before here at Musings. Not so fast. . . Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at