• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska retail construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska custom home Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska condominiums Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska high-rise construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska tract home Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska production housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska condominium Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska
    Anchorage Alaska structural concrete expertAnchorage Alaska delay claim expert witnessAnchorage Alaska roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAnchorage Alaska multi family design expert witnessAnchorage Alaska forensic architectAnchorage Alaska engineering consultantAnchorage Alaska defective construction expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anchorage Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Anchorage Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Anchorage Alaska

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    A Vision and Strategy for the Adoption of Open International Standards

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

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

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

    Candlebrook Adds Dormitories With $230 Million Purchase

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    Because I Haven’t Mentioned Mediation Lately. . .

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

    Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

    Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

    Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Plans Go High Tech

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

    Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Eliminating Waste in Construction – An Interview with Turner Burton

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Bought a New Vacation Home? I’m So Sorry

    Top Five General Tips for All Construction Contracts

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

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

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment
    Corporate Profile


    The Anchorage, Alaska Building Consultant Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 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 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 Consultant News & Info
    Anchorage, Alaska

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    June 22, 2020 —
    This article will serve as a guide to what is needed in a Property Management Agreement to avoid potential real estate disputes between owners and property managers. What is a Property Management Agreement? With the known volatility in the stock market since the “Dot-com Bubble” in the late 1990’s the Financial Crisis spanning 2007 to 2009, and even today’s global market crash arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic, people have looked to invest in options such as real estate that have proven to be more stable than the fluctuating and uncertain stock market. Today, more than ever, people have recognized the benefits in real estate and diversified their investments to include the ownership of residential or commercial property. This has grown to become a lucrative source of income. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

    August 24, 2020 —
    In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc., 50 Cal.App.5th 216 (June 10, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of six subcontractors with respect to an equitable subrogation lawsuit filed by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”). St. Paul filed the lawsuit after defending Pulte Home Corp. (“Pulte”) against two construction defect lawsuits. The lawsuit contended that St. Paul was entitled to seek recovery of defense costs incurred on behalf of Pulte based on equitable subrogation. St. Paul relied on the indemnity clauses in each of the subcontracts, and argued that the subcontractors had breached their contracts with Pulte. As such, each subcontractor was obligated to pay an equitable share of the defense of the construction defect lawsuits relating to their work on the homes at issue in such lawsuits. The trial court ruled against St. Paul and held that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs did not “cause” the homeowners’ claims, such that there was no causal connection supporting a claim for equitable subrogation. In addition, the trial court found that “equitable subrogation was an all-or-nothing claim, meaning it required a shifting of the entire amount of defense costs to the subcontractors on a joint and several basis and did not allow for an apportionment of costs among the defendant subcontractors.” In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal reasoned that St. Paul stood in the shoes of Pulte and was limited to pursuing recovery from the subcontractors based on the same rights as afforded to Pulte under the subcontracts. The Court of Appeal noted that St. Paul was seeking reimbursement of defense costs from the subcontractors based on the theory that they were contractually liable for paying an equitable share of defense costs. The Court of Appeal also noted that St. Paul’s claim was not premised on the contention that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs caused the homeowners’ claims. Rather, St. Paul’s claim was premised on the subcontractors’ breach of their defense duty owed to Pulte under the indemnity clauses in their subcontracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Velladao may be contacted at

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    September 07, 2020 —
    Earlier this year, Assemblyman Edwin Chau (D-Monterey Park) introduced Assembly Bill 2320. AB 2320, if passed, would require any business that contracts with the state and has access to records containing personal information protected under the state’s Information Practices Act (IPA) to maintain cyber insurance coverage. Information covered under the IPA includes names, social security numbers, physical descriptions, home addresses, home telephone numbers, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. Requiring contractors to maintain cyber insurance will likely both shift the costs of cyberattacks from taxpayers to the private sector, while also encouraging robust cyber security practices among businesses of all sizes. While the bill has not yet passed, businesses will be best served by implementing and improving cybersecurity practices now in order to attain lowest premium rates in the future. Incentivizing Best Practices With the adoption of AB 2320, businesses will be incentivized to increase their security posture in order to receive lower premiums from insurers. Simultaneously, insurers will be incentivized to mandate best practices from their insureds in order to mitigate their risk of having to pay out on cyber insurance policies. Thus, cyber insurance will work as a vehicle to increase best practices in businesses and subsequently decrease vulnerabilities to cyberattacks. Reprinted courtesy of Makenna Miller, Newmeyer Dillion and Jeffrey Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion Ms. Miller may be contacted at Mr. Dennis may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    July 20, 2020 —
    The Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America (INVEST in America) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 18, 2020 and is making its way up to Congress. The bill will create millions of jobs and provide substantial investment in the nation’s deteriorating highways, bridges and public transit systems. The bill also endeavors to leave behind a smaller carbon footprint, a major improvement for the nation’s biggest source of carbon pollution. Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of the nation’s infrastructure earns a grade of D+, and there exists an estimated $2 trillion funding gap to bring it into a state of good repair by 2025. While Americans have benefited from a century of infrastructure building, neglect has befallen our once greatest achievements – the roadways and arteries that led to the explosive growth of our nation. In the 1930s, 4.2 percent of the country’s GDP was spent on infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, by 2016 that number fell to 1.5 percent resulting in the substandard conditions that now confront us. Stated more bluntly, our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling and immediate investment in required to bring it up to par. The INVEST in America Act is our “immediate” opportunity to start replacing the outdated systems of the past with smarter, safer, and more resilient infrastructure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson
    Ms. Salomon may be contacted at

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    November 23, 2020 —
    VJ Associates, a Hicksville, N.Y., estimating consultant, has agreed to pay $3.13 million in civil and criminal penalties to settle charges that the firm overbilled and falsified hours on multiple federal and state government-funded transportation and other contracts in New York and Massachusetts, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston announced on Oct. 29. Reprinted courtesy of Eva Fedderly, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trump Order Waives Project Environment Rules to Push COVID-19 Recovery

    June 15, 2020 —
    Citing the "national emergency" spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic's economic hit, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that directs federal agencies to bypass environmental laws to expedite infrastructure projects, including those on federal lands, as a stimulus. Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record attorneys Debra K. Rubin, Mary B. Powers and Jim Parsons Ms. Rubin may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

    August 10, 2020 —
    On July 27, 2020, in the case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. AKI Renovations Group, Inc., (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2020), Index No. 159421/2017 (unpublished), the trial court issued an Order granting summary judgment permitting rescission of a CGL policy based upon material misrepresentations in a policy application. The insured submitted an application in which it failed to disclose its demolition operations despite specific questions seeking this information. Mt. Hawley issued a primary and excess policy for the period of December 29, 2016 to December 29, 2017 (collectively, the policy). Subsequently, the insured sought coverage for a claim in which it was alleged that the insured was acting as a general contractor for demolition of a three-story building when the plaintiff was injured. The insurer advised the defendants that it was rescinding the policy ab initio, and also returned defendants’ premium in its entirety. The insurer asserted that it would not have issued the policy had defendants disclosed their demolition operations, then filed the coverage action seeking a judicial declaration ratifying its rescission of the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Nobel may be contacted at

    The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

    October 05, 2020 —
    Risk transfer in the construction industry depends heavily on industry-standard insurance language. Insurance provisions in subcontracts typically reference ISO standard insurance terminology or endorsements in order to guarantee (or, at least, attempt to secure) coverage for upstream parties. The contract may require, for example, that a subcontractor maintains general liability insurance on a “current ISO occurrence form,” and name upstream parties as additional insureds, and both parties will have a general understanding of what that entails for purposes of risk transfer. Problems arise, however, when insurance companies stray from standard language, especially on issues that go to the heart of construction risk transfer. In some instances, provisions that track ISO language may contain subtle changes that seem to meet the contractual insurance requirements. Upon closer scrutiny, it could significantly change how a policy will respond to a given claim. Given the extent of potential liability arising from construction projects, if the insurance programs intended to back up risk transfer and indemnity agreements do not respond as expected, all the potentially liable parties may be left in the lurch. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Guertin may be contacted at Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of