• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Hartford Alabama housing building expert Hartford Alabama low-income housing building expert Hartford Alabama casino resort building expert Hartford Alabama Medical building building expert Hartford Alabama Subterranean parking building expert Hartford Alabama townhome construction building expert Hartford Alabama high-rise construction building expert Hartford Alabama office building building expert Hartford Alabama multi family housing building expert Hartford Alabama industrial building building expert Hartford Alabama tract home building expert Hartford Alabama landscaping construction building expert Hartford Alabama institutional building building expert Hartford Alabama condominium building expert Hartford Alabama structural steel construction building expert Hartford Alabama mid-rise construction building expert Hartford Alabama custom homes building expert Hartford Alabama production housing building expert Hartford Alabama hospital construction building expert Hartford Alabama custom home building expert Hartford Alabama parking structure building expert Hartford Alabama
    Hartford Alabama consulting engineersHartford Alabama engineering expert witnessHartford Alabama construction cost estimating expert witnessHartford Alabama expert witness roofingHartford Alabama soil failure expert witnessHartford Alabama construction defect expert witnessHartford Alabama construction safety expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Hartford Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Dothan & Wiregrass Area
    Local # 0132
    PO Box 9791
    Dothan, AL 36304
    Hartford Alabama Building Expert 10/ 10

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

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

    Hartford Alabama Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Hartford Alabama Building Expert 10/ 10

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

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

    Hartford Alabama Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Hartford Alabama Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Hartford Alabama

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    New York Bridge to Be Largest Infrastructure Project in North America

    New Jersey Judge Found Mortgage Lender Liable When Borrower Couldn’t Pay

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    Intentionally Set Atlanta Interstate Fire Closes Artery Until June

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing

    U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    SEC Recommendations to Protect Against Cybersecurity Threats

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

    Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

    No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Appraisers May Determine Causation

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Vito John Marzano Secure Dismissal of Indemnification and Breach of Contract Claims Asserted against Subcontractor

    Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

    Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    First Trump Agenda Nuggets Hit Construction

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Framework, Tallest Mass Timber Project in the U.S., Is On Hold

    Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    The Drought Is Sinking California

    Brenner Base Tunnelers Conquer Peaks and Valleys in the Alps

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    Wilke Fleury and Attorneys Recognized as ‘Best Law Firm’ and ‘Best Lawyers’ by U.S. News!

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Hartford, Alabama Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Hartford'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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Hartford, Alabama

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    February 26, 2015 —
    The federal district court for the district of New Jersey cracked down on a Texas law firm that filed 250 Hurricane Sandy related cases against insurers without adequate investigation. Lighthouse Point Marina & Yacht Club, LLC v. Int'l Marine Underwriters, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6430 (D. N.J. Jan. 20, 2015). The Texas firm filed more that 250 actions in New Jersey courts against insurers to recover for alleged property damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The original complaints were nearly identical with the same typos. The complaint in this case alleged that the insurer did not pay benefits under the policy for "extreme external and internal damages, as well as other wind-related loss," but did not specify the value or nature of the damage. The insurer answered that it sent an adjuster to the property soon after the storm and found wind damages to two fences, but no damage to any building on the property. The adjuster valued the claim at $1,612.00 and recommended a payment of $612.00, after applying the $1000 deductible. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    April 01, 2015 —
    The Department of Labor announced late last year that it had recovered nearly $2 million in back wages and fringe benefits from a subcontractor that provided constructions services at the federally funded Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in the Nevada desert. This was not a failure to pay Davis Bacon wages, but a failure to properly classify laborers on the project. The DOL determined that the laborers should have been paid as skilled trade steelworkers, not general laborers. As the subcontractor found out, this proved very costly. The subcontractor submitted its bid, classifying its laborers as general laborers and designating their wage at $30.00. The laborers were to assemble billboard sized mirrors on the project. There is some indication that the Department of Energy agreed with the classification, even though the Department of Labor has the final say on classifications. The Department of Labor’s investigation revealed that the laborers routinely performed duties in skilled trades, such as ironworking, electrical work, painting or bridge crane operation. Based on these activities, the Department of Labor concluded that the laborers should have been paid $60.00 per hour plus fringe benefits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    April 30, 2014 —
    John A. Husmann and Jocelyn F. Cornbleet of BatesCareyLLP analyzed several noteworthy construction defect cases that have already occurred in 2014, as published in Law360. The cases involved “the ‘occurrence’ requirement, contractual liability exclusion and ‘other insurance’ clauses.” Husmann and Cornbleet summarized Owners Insurance Co. v Jim Carr Homebuilder LLC (Alabama), Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Snider (also Alabama), Woodward LLC v. Acceptance Indemnification Insurance Co. (Mississippi), and others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

    July 18, 2018 —
    A Connecticut court recently denied a motion to compel appraisal of a claim for coverage of a commercial property damage claim, holding that, where the insurance policy at issue provides for appraisal of disputes related to the value or quantum or a loss suffered—not the rights and liabilities of the parties under the policy—appraisal is premature. The decision relied on law that equates insurance appraisal to arbitration and follows a number of decisions holding that parties cannot expand the scope of appraisal clauses to resolve questions of coverage or liability where, as in this case, those issues are not supported by the applicable policy language. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters and Geoffrey B. Fehling Mr. Levine may be contacted at Ms. Masters may be contacted at Mr. Fehling may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    August 11, 2011 —

    In Mosser Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 09-4449 (6th Cir. July 14, 2011)(unpublished), claimant project owner Port Clinton contracted with insured general contractor Mosser for the construction of a building.  Following completion, Port Clinton sued Mosser for breach of contract seeking damages because of physical injury to the project occurring after completion resulting from defective backfill material that settled improperly.

    Mosser’s CGL insurer Travelers denied a defense and Mosser filed suit against Travelers seeking a declaratory judgment. Mosser and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the supplier of the backfill material?Gerken?qualified as a subcontractor for purposes of the subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion—exclusion l.—for property damage to or arising out of Mosser’s completed work.   Mosser had purchased the backfill material from Gerken pursuant to a purchase order specifying that Gerken was to supply Mosser with an industry standard grade of backfill for use in the Port Clinton project.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    August 17, 2017 —
    Earlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.). California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts. In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    March 28, 2018 —
    Construction defect lawsuits can be complex multi-party disputes, especially when the plaintiff is doing what is necessary to maximize recovery. This means the plaintiff may sue multiple defendants associated with the defects and damage. For example, the owner (e.g., plaintiff) may sue the contractor, subcontractors, design professionals, etc. due to the magnitude of the damages. In many instances, the plaintiff is suing multiple defendants for overlapping damages. The law prohibits a plaintiff from double-recovering for the same damages prohibiting the windfall of a plaintiff recovering twice for the same damages. Perhaps this sentiment is straight common sense, but this sentiment is a very important consideration when it comes to settling with one or more of the defendants, while potentially trying the construction defect case as to remaining defendants. Analysis and strategy is involved when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case (and, really, for any type of case). Time must be devoted to crafting specific language in the settlement agreements to deal with this issue. Otherwise, the settlement(s) could be set-off from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants. The recent decision in Addison Construction Corp. v. Vecellio, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D625(a) (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) details the analysis and strategy required when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case, and the concern associated with a trial court setting-off the settlement amount from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    May 13, 2014 —
    Following two years in which its big-bank peers paid almost $2 billion to resolve fraud accusations by the Federal Housing Administration, Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) has decided it isn’t giving up so easily. Wells Fargo was one of five banks that agreed in 2012 to a nationwide, $25 billion settlement with the Justice Department over mortgage wrongdoing that included botched foreclosures. The FHA then took additional action against four of the banks, including Wells Fargo, for related housing-crisis wrongdoing. Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. decided to settle those matters. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, which argued the nationwide settlement should have blocked the new FHA claims against it, chose to fight. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Zajac, Bloomberg
    Mr. Zajac may be contacted at