• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction Building Consultant Nulato Alaska landscaping construction Building Consultant Nulato Alaska custom homes Building Consultant Nulato Alaska Subterranean parking Building Consultant Nulato Alaska condominiums Building Consultant Nulato Alaska housing Building Consultant Nulato Alaska townhome construction Building Consultant Nulato Alaska structural steel construction Building Consultant Nulato Alaska condominium Building Consultant Nulato Alaska low-income housing Building Consultant Nulato Alaska institutional building Building Consultant Nulato Alaska custom home Building Consultant Nulato Alaska retail construction Building Consultant Nulato Alaska Medical building Building Consultant Nulato Alaska office building Building Consultant Nulato Alaska mid-rise construction Building Consultant Nulato Alaska production housing Building Consultant Nulato Alaska multi family housing Building Consultant Nulato Alaska high-rise construction Building Consultant Nulato Alaska tract home Building Consultant Nulato Alaska concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Nulato Alaska industrial building Building Consultant Nulato Alaska
    Nulato Alaska civil engineer expert witnessNulato Alaska expert witness roofingNulato Alaska architecture expert witnessNulato Alaska roofing construction expertNulato Alaska construction expert testimonyNulato Alaska building expertNulato Alaska consulting engineers
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Nulato, 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 Nulato Alaska

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required

    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Interior Alaska Builders Association
    Local # 0235
    938 Aspen Street
    Fairbanks, AK 99709

    Nulato Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Nulato Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Nulato Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Nulato Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Nulato Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Nulato Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Nulato Alaska Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Nulato Alaska

    Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

    The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.

    Nebraska Joins the Ranks—No CGL Coverage for Faulty Work

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    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

    State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

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

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Acceptable Worksite: New City of Seattle Specification Provisions Now In Effect

    California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims

    North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

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

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

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

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations
    Corporate Profile


    The Nulato, Alaska Building Consultant 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Nulato'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
    Nulato, Alaska

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    February 15, 2018 —
    The Chicago Plan Commission on Jan. 18 approved a $700-million development that, as presented, would include the city’s sixth-tallest building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    January 04, 2018 —
    Many clients and friends have inquired about accelerating the payment of their 2018 real property taxes as a result of the recent enactment of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Pursuant to that Act, the deduction for state and local income, real property and other taxes will be capped at $10,000 in tax years 2018 through 2025. The Act, moreover, specifically disallows a deduction in 2017 for 2018 state and local income taxes that are prepaid before year-end. The Act was not clear on whether a prepayment of 2018 real property taxes would be deductible in 2017. For certain taxpayers that are not subject to the alternative minimum tax, a prepayment of those 2018 real property taxes might be of current benefit to them. Yesterday, the IRS issued an advisory to taxpayers outlining which real property tax prepayments will be deductible in 2017 and which are not. The text of that advisory, together with the illustrative examples, is set out below for your consideration. IR-2017-210, DEC. 27, 2017 WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service advised tax professionals and taxpayers today that pre-paying 2018 state and local real property taxes in 2017 may be tax deductible under certain circumstances. The IRS has received a number of questions from the tax community concerning the deductibility of prepaid real property taxes. In general, whether a taxpayer is allowed a deduction for the prepayment of state or local real property taxes in 2017 depends on whether the taxpayer makes the payment in 2017 and the real property taxes are assessed prior to 2018. A prepayment of anticipated real property taxes that have not been assessed prior to 2018 are not deductible in 2017. State or local law determines whether and when a property tax is assessed, which is generally when the taxpayer becomes liable for the property tax imposed. The following examples illustrate these points. Example 1: Assume County A assesses property tax on July 1, 2017 for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. On July 31, 2017, County A sends notices to residents notifying them of the assessment and billing the property tax in two installments with the first installment due Sept. 30, 2017 and the second installment due Jan. 31, 2018. Assuming taxpayer has paid the first installment in 2017, the taxpayer may choose to pay the second installment on Dec. 31, 2017, and may claim a deduction for this prepayment on the taxpayer’s 2017 return. Example 2: County B also assesses and bills its residents for property taxes on July 1, 2017, for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. County B intends to make the usual assessment in July 2018 for the period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019. However, because county residents wish to prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017, County B has revised its computer systems to accept prepayment of property taxes for the 2018-2019 property tax year. Taxpayers who prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017 will not be allowed to deduct the prepayment on their federal tax returns because the county will not assess the property tax for the 2018-2019 tax year until July 1, 2018. The IRS reminds taxpayers that a number of provisions remain available this week that could affect 2017 tax bills. Time remains to make charitable donations. See IR-17-191 for more information. The deadline to make contributions for individual retirement accounts - which can be used by some taxpayers on 2017 tax returns - is the April 2018 tax deadline. has more information on these and other provisions to help taxpayers prepare for the upcoming filing season. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Hussey, White and Williams
    Mr. Hussey may be contacted at

    Administration Seeks To Build New FBI HQ on Current D.C. Site

    February 28, 2018 —
    A Senate committee plans to examine a new $3.3-billion Trump administration proposal to demolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worn, outmoded headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., and construct a new facility on that site. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at

    County Sovereign Immunity Invokes Change-Order Ordinance

    December 20, 2017 —
    The recent case of Fulton County v. Soco Contracting Company, Inc. addresses two very interesting questions for local government attorneys. First, can a county ordinance bolster a defense of sovereign immunity against a contractor’s claims? Second, can a county waive sovereign immunity by failing to respond to Requests for Admission? Facts: County hired Contractor to construct a facility near the airport. The contract provided that change orders must satisfy a county ordinance, which required approval by the Board of Commissioners. But in emergency situations, the County Manager could approve change orders, as long as the contractor executes a proposed modification and the purchasing agent approves it. The project suffered substantial delays, which Contractor attributed to weather, design delays, delays by the County in providing decisions on changes, and delays in obtaining permits during the federal government’s shutdown. As a result of these issues, Contractor comes County changed the scope of the contract. Contractor asserted claims against County for the delays and the changes to the work. The appellate opinion addresses the change order claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lizbeth Dison, Autry Hall & Cook, LLP

    NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

    February 28, 2018 —
    In a potentially significant development in New York insurance law, a recent appellate level decision held that an excess liability policy was not obligated to provide coverage where the underlying employer’s liability policy provided unlimited coverage pursuant to New York regulations. The Arthur Vincent & Sons Construction, Inc. v. Century Surety Insurance Co.1 case arose out of an underlying wrongful death claim. Fordham University hired Arthur Vincent and Sons Construction, Inc. (“AVSC”) to install a new roof on its Lewis Calder Center. As is typical of most construction contracts, AVSC agreed to indemnify the University against any claims arising out of its negligence, and to name the University as an additional insured on its commercial general liability policy. AVSC was insured by three policies: (1) a worker’s compensation and employer’s liability policy issued by Commerce and Industry Insur¬ance Company (“CIIC”); (2) a primary CGL policy issued by Century Surety Insurance Company (“Century”); and (3) an excess liability policy issued by Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”). Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at Ms. Martino may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January

    February 22, 2018 —
    Sales of previously owned U.S. homes unexpectedly fell in January to a four-month low, indicating a shortage of available properties is increasingly hindering the real-estate industry, a National Association of Realtors report showed Wednesday. Sales growth is limited by an acute shortage of inventory, which is pushing up home prices faster than wage growth. The group noted that property prices have jumped 41 percent over the past five years, while wages have gained 12 percent. If the current pace of sales continues -- which NAR doesn’t anticipate -- purchases would be lower than in 2017. At the same time, steady hiring and elevated confidence to make large purchases, as well as tax cuts that are boosting Americans’ take-home pay, are expected to sustain demand for housing in much of the nation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

    February 22, 2018 —
    Women make up 47 percent of the total U.S. workforce yet they only hold approximately 9 percent of construction jobs nationwide. Because of this minority, women endure health and safety issues that men usually don’t, according to’s article “OSHA renews alliance to protect women in construction.” The main areas that women face problems in the construction industry are healthy, safety and workplace culture. Women are potentially exposed to sexual harassment, demeaning remarks, and bodily assaults. Most of personal protective equipment (PPE) and tools are made for the typical male body to use and operate and are too heavy or oversized for many women. The National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC) partnered with OSHA in 2013 and just renewed their alliance aiming to improve upon workplace intimidation and violence as well as sanitation and PPE. The partnership is committed “to providing NAWIC members and others with information, guidance, and access to training resources that will help them protect the health and safety of workers, and understand the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).” This will be achieved by the implementation of national rules, laws, and standards as well as the circulation of preventative information. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    May 24, 2018 —
    Every few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1] The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at