• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Shaktoolik Alaska office building building expert Shaktoolik Alaska Medical building building expert Shaktoolik Alaska production housing building expert Shaktoolik Alaska Subterranean parking building expert Shaktoolik Alaska institutional building building expert Shaktoolik Alaska tract home building expert Shaktoolik Alaska casino resort building expert Shaktoolik Alaska condominiums building expert Shaktoolik Alaska parking structure building expert Shaktoolik Alaska mid-rise construction building expert Shaktoolik Alaska townhome construction building expert Shaktoolik Alaska industrial building building expert Shaktoolik Alaska low-income housing building expert Shaktoolik Alaska multi family housing building expert Shaktoolik Alaska retail construction building expert Shaktoolik Alaska condominium building expert Shaktoolik Alaska housing building expert Shaktoolik Alaska concrete tilt-up building expert Shaktoolik Alaska high-rise construction building expert Shaktoolik Alaska custom homes building expert Shaktoolik Alaska hospital construction building expert Shaktoolik Alaska
    Shaktoolik Alaska architectural engineering expert witnessShaktoolik Alaska building consultant expertShaktoolik Alaska construction safety expertShaktoolik Alaska expert witness windowsShaktoolik Alaska consulting engineersShaktoolik Alaska construction defect expert witnessShaktoolik Alaska eifs expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Shaktoolik, 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 Shaktoolik 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

    Shaktoolik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Shaktoolik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Shaktoolik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Shaktoolik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Shaktoolik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Shaktoolik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Shaktoolik Alaska Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Shaktoolik Alaska

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Southern California Super Lawyers Recognizes Four Snell & Wilmer Attorneys As Rising Stars

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

    Plans Go High Tech

    Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Terminating Notice of Commencement Without Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Generally, What Constitutes A Trade Secret Is A Question of Fact

    How to Protect the High-Tech Home

    California’s Housing Costs Endanger Growth, Analyst Says

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

    Builder and County Tussle over Unfinished Homes

    Mississippi Floods Prompt New Look at Controversial Dam Project

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    Arizona Contractor Designs Water-Repellant Cabinets

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    New Home Sales Slip, but Still Strong

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    How the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite Safety
    Corporate Profile


    The Shaktoolik, 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. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Shaktoolik'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
    Shaktoolik, Alaska

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    September 10, 2018 —
    In a victory for policyholders, and an honorable mention for Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the dispersal of concrete dust that damaged inventory stored in an aircraft part distributor’s warehouse was a pollutant, as defined by the policy, but that it also constituted “smoke” as that term was defined in the dictionary, thereby implicating an exception to the policy’s pollution exclusion. The Court then granted summary judgment for the policyholder, who had suffered a $3.2 million loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    May 07, 2014 —
    The insurer's attempt to dismiss the insured's multi-count complaint for failure to provide full coverage for flood damage failed. Ragusa Corp. v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40812 (D. Conn. March 27, 2014). The insureds' house suffered significant damage due to flood associated with Hurricane Irene. The insureds submitted a claim. Standard Fire paid $35,216.75, well below what the insureds thought they were owed. The insureds returned the check and demanded what they believed was full payment. The insureds demanded an appraisal because the parties did not agree on the amount being paid under the policy, including disagreement about the amount owed for items that both sides agreed were covered under the policy. Standard Fire refused to participate in an appraisal. The insureds ended up suing Standard Fire, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Paul Tetzloff Elected As Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner

    June 03, 2019 —
    Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, a prominent business and real estate law firm, selected Paul Tetzloff as the firm's Managing Partner. His term began on January 1, 2019. A business litigator, Tetzloff will now oversee the firm's strategic plan and manage the firm's day-to-day business affairs. "The Firm is incredibly fortunate to have Paul stepping into the role as Managing Partner. His energy, intelligence, leadership, and drive make him uniquely qualified to lead this Firm for years to come," said former Managing Partner Jeff Dennis. "I am excited to watch where the Firm is headed – we have such an amazing opportunity to continue to develop to even greater heights, and Paul will be a huge part of making that happen." Active in his community, Tetzloff sits on the board for HomeAid Orange County and the Marine Raider Association. Tetzloff is succeeding Dennis, who served in the role from 2012 to 2018. "Jeff was our managing partner for seven years and he did an outstanding job. We owe Jeff a debt of gratitude for his service," said Tetzloff of his predecessor. "I'm looking forward to continuing to build on the groundwork laid to help the firm reach new levels in the years to come." Dennis' leadership allowed the firm to grow substantially under his tenure, including opening a Las Vegas, Nevada office and establishing thriving practice areas throughout various industries. Dennis will focus his energy on overseeing the firm's growing Privacy and Data Security practice. Paul Tetzloff Practice Areas Business Litigation Construction Litigation Real Estate Litigation About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    November 26, 2014 —
    As the homebuilding market continues to improve, many builders find themselves maneuvering familiar roads. That said, important new realities have taken hold since the market collapse. Navigating these changes requires extra thought for practical and legal reasons. Using Old Designs “Off the Shelf”? The adoption of the California Building Standards Code in 2010, with an updated schedule to go into effect January 1, may complicate the use of older designs. In addition, some builders are contemplating building on pads constructed five or more years ago, temporarily shelved until market conditions improved. Because of changes in both the applicable Code and due to possible changes in the underlying soils and drainage, these projects require additional scrutiny before starting construction. Mechanic’s Lien Law Changes Not too long ago, the California Legislature recently overhauled the entire mechanic’s lien law system in California. New forms, new statutory references, new rules and deadlines are all applicable to projects under construction now. Make sure your documents are up to date, as the use of older forms (particularly for liens, progress payments, and final payments) could create legal problems in the future. Indemnity Law Changes Since 2006, California lawmakers have passed four rounds of legislation aimed at limiting indemnity provisions in construction contracts. The laws are aimed at two aspects of indemnity law: “Type 1” indemnity provisions, and liability for the costs of defending a claim. Type 1 Indemnity. California law previously permitted a builder to obtain “Type 1” indemnity from its subcontractors for all claims. Under a Type 1 provision, if a claim arose out of the trade’s work, the trade was fully responsible to defend and indemnify the builder – even if other trades or the Builder were partially at fault. Some cases even allowed, typically in a commercial context, the builder to obtain Type 1 indemnity even if the trade was not negligent, as long as the claim involved its work. Defense Obligation. In 2008, California’s highest court issued an opinion in Crawford v. Weather Shield, evaluating an indemnity provision requiring trade (a window supplier/manufacturer) to defend the builder in claims involving allegations of damages arising out of the trade’s work. Because the trade had contractually agreed to defend the builder, the Court held it responsible for the builder’s defense costs -- even though, ultimately, the trade was found not liable for the actual damages claimed. Recent legislation after Crawford has dramatically shifted how indemnity provisions will be enforced. Builders may no longer obtain Type 1 indemnity for residential construction defect claims covered by SB800; instead, indemnity is limited to the extent a claim arises out of the trade’s work. Even more recent legislation applied these changes to claims arising out of commercial construction projects. The recent legislation allows the trades “options” on how to defend the builder, with an eye toward requiring that they pay only a “reasonably allocated” portion for the builder’s defense costs. Smart builders are refining their contract documents to take into account these new limitations on indemnity provisions. Insurance Market Changes Due to uncertainties in subcontractor insurance and other factors, many builders have also converted their liability insurance from a “bring your own” model to “wrap-up” insurance, where the builder’s policy also covers their trades. Builders should carefully examine their subcontracts in light of this change as well. Trade Partner Changes On a practical level, many trade partners, particularly in the residential sector, have gone out of business or moved on to greener pastures. Builders need to find and negotiate contracts with new trade partners on the fly, and educate them on the builders’ procedures for payment and construction. SB800 documentation A decade ago, most builders updated their purchase documents and subcontracts for California’s “Right to Repair Law” (also known as SB800), which set forth functionality standards for construction defects in residential housing, and procedures for resolving claims prior to litigation. Builders ramping up to meet market demand should examine how they implemented SB800 changes in contract documents. Issues to consider:
    • Whether to opt out of -- or back into -- statutory procedures.
    • Whether to include arbitration or judicial reference provisions to control where claims are litigated after the SB800 process.
    • Re-training personnel to preserve SB800 rights, including sign-offs on purchase documentation and recordation of key documents.
    • Recent Court of Appeal decisions have complicated the SB800 landscape, potentially opening the door to “common law” tort claims in at least subrogation contexts. Strategic planning at the document stage may be a good way to mitigate this risk as the cases wind their way through the judicial process.
    The continuing surge in building activity is a welcome sign for builders who have weathered the storm. Before taking too many steps, builders should consult with counsel, their designers, and their insurance advisors to take into account the new realities of this recovering housing market. About the Author Alan H. Packer is a partner in the expanding Walnut Creek, CA, office of the law firm of Newmeyer & Dillion LLP whose specialties include real estate, insurance, and construction litigation. To reach Alan, call 925.988.3200 or email him at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    October 22, 2014 —
    Builders started work on more homes in September and American consumers this month were the most optimistic in seven years, signaling the U.S. economy will ride out a global slowdown. Housing starts climbed 6.3 percent to a 1.02 million annualized rate from a 957,000 pace in August as multifamily and single-family projects advanced, the Commerce Department reported today in Washington. The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary sentiment index for October increased to 86.4, the strongest since July 2007, another report showed. Gains in residential construction will help underpin the economic expansion as the recent drop in mortgage rates lifts home sales and gives builders reason to take on more projects. Other figures showing factory production rebounded last month and claims for jobless benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in 14 years added to evidence the turbulence in global markets has yet to depress the world’s largest economy. Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at; Ms. Trubow may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko and Danielle Trubow, Bloomberg

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    December 20, 2017 —
    On November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at Ms. Martino may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    July 30, 2014 —
    Spending on non-residential construction in the U.S. will be less than initially projected as state and local governments scale back investments in such properties as schools and health-care buildings, the American Institute of Architects said. Total spending on commercial and institutional development probably will increase 4.9 percent this year, down from an earlier estimate of 5.8 percent, according to a semi-annual survey by the Washington-based group. A slowdown in funding for institutional projects, which include education, health-care, religious and public-safety facilities, has been a drag on the recovery of the wider industry, according to Kermit Baker, the AIA’s chief economist. The group expects institutional-construction spending to fall 0.1 percent this year, compared with January’s projection for an increase of 3.4 percent, Baker said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
    Ms. Brandt may be contacted at

    Mind The Appeal Or: A Lesson From Auto-Owners Insurance Co. V. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. On Timing Insurance Bad Faith And Declaratory Judgment Insurance Claims Following A Nunn-Agreement

    August 06, 2019 —
    On May 30, 2019, Judge Richard Brooke Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado offered an insightful lesson to the parties in Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.[1] on the importance of ripeness in declaratory judgment insurance actions and bad faith counterclaims. The case arrived in front of Judge Jackson based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association and all the other claims between all the parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand on Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. (“Nunn-Agreement”) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at