• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska custom home Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska tract home Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska production housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska mid-rise construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska office building Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska condominiums Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska condominium Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska high-rise construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska industrial building Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Anchorage Alaska
    Anchorage Alaska civil engineer expert witnessAnchorage Alaska building envelope expert witnessAnchorage Alaska expert witness structural engineerAnchorage Alaska expert witness roofingAnchorage Alaska delay claim expert witnessAnchorage Alaska architectural expert witnessAnchorage Alaska building code expert witness
    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

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    How Drones are Speeding Up Construction

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact

    CA Homeowners Challenging Alternate Pre-Litigation Procedures

    How Helsinki Airport Uses BIM to Create the Best Customer Experience

    Housing Bill Threatened by Rift on Help for Disadvantaged

    S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Make Prudent Decisions regarding your Hurricane Irma Property Damage Claims

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

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

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

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

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose

    House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending
    Corporate Profile


    The Anchorage, Alaska Building Consultant Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Anchorage, Alaska

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Preserves Possibility of Coverage

    January 15, 2019 —
    The policy's anti-concurrent causation clause preserved the possibility of coverage when the insurer's motion for summary judgment to disclaim its indemnity obligation for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy was overturned by the Second Circuit. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29821 (Oct. 23, 2018 2nd Cir. ) In 2012, Madelaine Chocolate suffered significant damage to its business due to storm surges created by Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate had an "all-risk" policy issued by Great Northern. Madelaine Chocolate filed a claim for property damage of approximately $40 million and business income loss and extra operation expenses of $13.5 million. Great Northern denied most of the claim, reasoning that the storm surge damage was excluded under the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Idaho Federal Court Rules Against Sacketts After SCOTUS Decided Judicial Review of an EPA Compliance Order was Permissible

    May 13, 2019 —
    In a decision released on March 31, in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. District Court for Idaho held, without benefit of oral argument, that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) motion for summary judgment should be granted, and accordingly, the Sacketts had violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by making improvements to 0.63 acres of land they owned without a required CWA permit when the land qualified as a “wetlands.” The EPA had determined the Sacketts’ “property is subject to the CWA because it contains wetlands adjacent to Priest Lake, a traditionally ‘navigable water,’ and, additionally, their property is wetland adjacent to a tributary and similarly situated to other wetlands and has a significant nexus to Priest Lake.” The District Court rejected the Sacketts’ arguments that their property was not a “wetlands” subject to the CWA. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    December 04, 2018 —
    In Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly 2225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2018), the Third District Court of Appeals of Florida addressed whether a third-party spoliation claim should be litigated and tried at the same time as the plaintiff’s underlying tort case. The court held that since the third-party spoliation claim did not accrue until the underlying claim was resolved, the spoliation cause of action could not proceed until the plaintiff resolved his underlying claim. The underlying matter in Amerisure involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Lazaro Rodriguez. While working as an employee for BV Oil, Inc. (BV), Mr. Rodriguez was knocked from the top of a gasoline tanker he was fueling at a gasoline storage warehouse owned by Cosme Investment (Cosme). Mr. Rodriguez filed a personal injury lawsuit against Cosme. He also collected worker’s compensation benefits from Amerisure Insurance Company (Amerisure), BV’s worker’s compensation carrier, while his lawsuit was pending. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White & Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    April 02, 2019 —
    Most companies have been involved in a situation where they want to end their relationship with another company, or with an employee, and to permanently terminate their mutual obligations (e.g., a settlement agreement resolving end-of-project litigation). In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. Price, confirmed that upholding general releases is “in harmony… with a beneficial principle of contract law: that general releases can be so constructed as to be completely enforceable.” In California, agreements with a release of claims (or s general release) include what is often referred to as a California Civil Code § 1542 waiver for the purpose of ensuring that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered. Such a waiver provision generally confirms that the Releasing Party acknowledges that it understands and waives the provisions of Section 1542, followed by the quoted text of Section 1542 (typically in all capital letters). Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and William S. Hale, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Mr. Hale may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    April 03, 2019 —
    One of the 407 bills the Colorado legislature is considering as of the date of this blog post is House Bill 19-1170, the Residential Tenants Health and Safety Act, which can be found at and clicking on the link for the recent bill text. The bill passed the House on February 26 and is in the Senate for consideration. The bill currently adds two substantive conditions to those conditions that make a residential premises uninhabitable. One is the lack of functioning appliances that conformed to applicable law when installed and that are maintained in good working order. The second is “mold that is associated with dampness, or there is any other condition causing the premises to be damp, which condition, if not remedied, would materially interfere with the health or safety of the tenant…,” referred to here as “the mold or dampness provision.” The bill also amends various procedural provisions of Colorado law to make enforcement by a tenant easier and broadens tenant remedies. The bill grants jurisdiction to county and small claims courts to grant injunctions for breach. This article focuses on the mold or dampness provision. The mold or dampness provision is vague and will likely lead to abuse. First, there is mold everywhere. While expert witnesses routinely testify about the level of exposure that is unacceptable, no generally accepted medical standards for an unacceptable level of mold exposure currently exist, and each person reacts to mold differently. There is no requirement in the bill that mold exposure exceed levels that are generally considered harmful by experts in the field, or even in excess of naturally occurring background levels. Second, some sources estimate that there are over 100,000 different species of mold. No harmful effects have been shown for many species of mold, while other species of mold are considered harmful. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    February 27, 2019 —
    In Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at Mr. Squillario may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    February 27, 2019 —
    In Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties’ denial of requests for admission (RFA’s) based upon their expert’s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials. In Orange County Water District, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at Mr. Zucker may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces New Partner Bahaar Cadambi

    May 06, 2019 —
    Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that Newport Beach attorney Bahaar Cadambi has been elected to partnership. "Bahaar has worked hard to become an integral part of the firm's litigation practice, delivering exceptional value to her colleagues and clients at every opportunity," said the firm's Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff, "We are proud to count her among our partners and look forward to her continued success and contributions." Cadambi concentrates her practice in business, insurance, and real estate litigation. She represents businesses, homebuilders, developers, and general contractors in complex, multi-party real estate, construction defect, and insurance disputes. She also represents individuals and businesses across a variety of business litigation matters. Her approach to litigation ensures that clients are informed of all potential strategies, the consequences of those strategies, and how the implementation of those strategies will affect their business. Passionate about the legal community, Cadambi is an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and an active member of CREW (Commercial Real Estate Women Orange County). She is also a Barry's Bootcamp and yoga enthusiast, lover of all things interior design, avid traveler, devoted wife, and favorite aunt to two energetic nieces and one cheerful nephew. Bahaar earned her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles and her J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law. Prior to joining Newmeyer & Dillion, she served as a Judicial Extern for the Honorable William Alsup in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Bahaar Cadambi:
      Practice Areas
    • Business Litigation
    • Construction Litigation
    • Insurance Law
    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