• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction Building Consultant Chignik Alaska production housing Building Consultant Chignik Alaska tract home Building Consultant Chignik Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Chignik Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Chignik Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant Chignik Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Chignik Alaska custom home Building Consultant Chignik Alaska casino resort Building Consultant Chignik Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Chignik Alaska housing Building Consultant Chignik Alaska office building Building Consultant Chignik Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Chignik Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Chignik Alaska parking structure Building Consultant Chignik Alaska hospital construction Building Consultant Chignik Alaska high-rise construction Building Consultant Chignik Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Chignik Alaska retail construction Building Consultant Chignik Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Chignik Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Chignik Alaska condominium Building Consultant Chignik Alaska
    Chignik Alaska building expertChignik Alaska forensic architectChignik Alaska hospital construction expert witnessChignik Alaska construction expert witness consultantChignik Alaska building code compliance expert witnessChignik Alaska consulting general contractorChignik Alaska construction scheduling expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Chignik, 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 Chignik Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

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

    Chignik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Chignik Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Chignik Alaska

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Manhattan Gets First Crowdfunded Condos

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar

    Wendel Rosen Attorneys Named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their San Antonio Office

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    No Third-Quarter Gain for Construction

    How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

    Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    Is Drone Aerial Photography Really Best for Your Construction Projects?

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Oregon Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Construction (Construction Defect) Claims Are Subject to a Two-Year Statute of Limitations

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

    TOLLING AGREEMENTS: Construction Defect Lawyers use them to preserve Association Warranty Claims during Construction Defect Negotiations with Developers

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

    Construction May Begin with Documents, but It Shouldn’t End That Way

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

    The Creation of San Fransokyo

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    Issues to Watch Out for When Managing Remote Workers

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

    HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    Architectural Democracy – Interview with Pedro Aibéo

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    Mortgage Whistleblower Stands Alone as U.S. Won’t Join Lawsuit

    Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Chignik, Alaska Building Consultant Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Chignik'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 Consultant News & Info
    Chignik, Alaska

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    August 17, 2020 —
    After mediation failed, a federal whistle blower lawsuit over alleged fraud against two contractors, which also targets sureties and a surety bond producer, is moving forward. The parties have asked a U.S. district court judge in Washington, D.C. to rule on outstanding motions in preparation for a possible trial. Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    August 03, 2020 —
    This year’s Colorado State Legislative session was cut short. However, in the period of time Colorado’s Legislature was in session, it passed and evaluated important legislation for Colorado homebuilders. This article highlights relevant legislation for Colorado homebuilders. 1. HB 20-1155 This Bill creates new requirements on new homebuilders to offer renewable energy systems to the buyer of a new home. Specifically, the Bill requires homebuilders to offer each of the following:
    • A solar panel system, a solar thermal system, or both;
    • Prewiring or pre-plumbing for the above solar systems; and,
    • A chase or conduit for future installation of such systems.
    The Bill further requires Colorado homebuilders to offer homebuyers one of the following:
    • An electric vehicle charging system;
    • Prewiring for the future installation for such a system; or,
    • A plug-in receptacle in a place accessible to a vehicle parking area.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at

    First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

    January 18, 2021 —
    The First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned. In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at Ms. Perez may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

    August 17, 2020 —
    On June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses. The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at Ms. DeField may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Judge Refuses to Limit Coverage and Moves Forward with Policyholder’s Claims Against Insurer and Broker

    December 07, 2020 —
    On November 10, 2020, a New York federal judge dismissed an insurer’s counterclaims seeking to cap its exposure under a $15 million sublimit and an order estopping the policyholder from pursuing any additional amounts. In February 2017, Plaintiff Pilkington North America, Inc. (Pilkington), suffered between $60 and $100 million in damage from a tornado that struck its glass manufacturing factory in Illinois. Pilkington sought coverage for its loss under a commercial property and business interruption policy issued by Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company (MSI). Pilkington also claimed its insurance broker, Aon Risk Services Central, Inc. (Aon), is liable for faulty advice provided while brokering the policy. Aon’s negligence allegedly gave way to MSI’s fraudulent revision of the insurance policy, which caused the losses from the tornado to not be fully compensable. Pilkington’s fraud and faulty brokering claims stem from MSI’s revision of an endorsement contained in the policy. The revision changed the wording of a windstorm sublimit. Allegedly, Aon was informed by MSI of the changes and failed to inform Pilkington that the revision would substantially reduce coverage for windstorms, including tornados. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at

    New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

    November 16, 2020 —
    On September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof. This effectively makes the summary judgment phase of litigation the last chance to bar experts from a jury trial or take any other dispositive action The new rule comes at a time in which the evidentiary standard for experts is shifting in New Jersey. In October 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court reconciled the framework for analyzing the reliability of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703 in In re: Accutane Litigation. Significantly, New Jersey, a traditional Frye jurisdiction, incorporated certain federal Daubert factors for expert “use by our courts” but, overall, fell short of adopting the Daubert standard as a whole. In applying the relevant Daubert factors, the trial court in Accutane held that the subject experts’ methodologies were unsound due to the failure to apply fundamentals of the scientific method of the medical-evidence hierarchy. The decision resulted in the dismissal of over 3,000 claims. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Regan may be contacted at Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    November 23, 2020 —
    Teaming agreements are practical and useful agreements on public projects where a prime contractor teams with a subcontractor for purposes of submitting a bid or proposal in response to a solicitation. The prime contractor and subcontractor work together to pursue that solicitation and have the government award the contract to the prime contractor. The teaming agreement allows for information to be confidentially shared (estimating and pricing, construction methodologies, systems, and suggestions, value engineering, etc.) where the subcontractor agrees that it will only pursue the solicitation with the prime contractor. In other words, the subcontractor ideally is not going to submit pricing to another prime contractor proposing or bidding on the same project and is not going to share information the prime contractor has furnished to it. Likewise, the prime contractor is not going to use the subcontractor’s information for purposes of finding another subcontractor at a lower price and is agreeing to use its good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract with the subcontractor if it is awarded the project. This is all memorialized in the teaming agreement. The potential problem lies with language that requires the parties to use their good faith efforts or best attempts to enter into a subcontract if the project is awarded to the prime contractor. In essence, this can become a disfavored “agreement to agree” to a future contract that could allow either party to create an argument to back out of the deal under the auspice that they could not come to terms with the subcontract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    August 10, 2020 —
    The COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility. Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, Douglas Weck and Victor Zarrilli Mr. Devine may be contacted at Mr. Weck may be contacted at Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of