• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama Subterranean parking Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama tract home Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama hospital construction Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama condominiums Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama landscaping construction Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama low-income housing Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama high-rise construction Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama industrial building Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama condominium Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama structural steel construction Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama production housing Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama institutional building Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama parking structure Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama retail construction Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama custom homes Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama townhome construction Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama multi family housing Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama housing Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama mid-rise construction Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama casino resort Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Slocomb Alabama
    Slocomb Alabama building code compliance expert witnessSlocomb Alabama slope failure expert witnessSlocomb Alabama engineering consultantSlocomb Alabama building envelope expert witnessSlocomb Alabama construction defect expert witnessSlocomb Alabama construction code expert witnessSlocomb Alabama construction scheduling expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Slocomb, Alabama

    Alabama Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Although there is case law precedent for right to repair, Title 6 Article 13A states action must be commenced within 2 years after cause and not more than 13 years after completion of construction.

    Building Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Slocomb Alabama

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.

    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Dothan & Wiregrass Area
    Local # 0132
    PO Box 9791
    Dothan, AL 36304
    Slocomb Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Enterprise Home Builders Association
    Local # 0133
    PO Box 310861
    Enterprise, AL 36331
    Slocomb Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Metro Mobile Inc
    Local # 0156
    1613 University Blvd S
    Mobile, AL 36609

    Slocomb Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Baldwin County Home Builders Association
    Local # 0184
    916 PLantation Blvd
    Fairhope, AL 36532

    Slocomb Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    South Alabama Home Builders Association
    Local # 0102
    PO Box 190
    Greenville, AL 36037
    Slocomb Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Alabama
    Local # 0100
    PO Box 241305
    Montgomery, AL 36124

    Slocomb Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Greater Montgomery Home Builders Association
    Local # 0164
    6336 Woodmere Blvd
    Montgomery, AL 36117

    Slocomb Alabama Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Slocomb Alabama

    Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

    A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage

    The New Industrial Revolution: Rebuilding America and the World

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

    Seller Faces Federal Charges for Lying on Real Estate Disclosure Forms

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    More Business Value from Drones with Propeller and Trimble – Interview with Rory San Miguel

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    New Braves Stadium Is Three Months Ahead of Schedule, Team Says

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Manhattan Bargain: Condos for Less Than $3 Million

    The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

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

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

    Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    White and Williams Defeats Policyholder’s Attempt to Invalidate Asbestos Exclusions
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Slocomb, Alabama Building Consultant Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Slocomb'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
    Slocomb, Alabama

    Study Finds Construction Cranes Vulnerable to Hacking

    May 20, 2019 —
    When securing a jobsite against malicious hackers, most go to protect computer files, and few look up and worry about the tower cranes. But many cranes—whether tower, mobile or industrial—can be remotely run via radio wireless controllers, a useful feature for when operators need a clearer view of the load from the ground. Unfortunately, these wireless signals are vulnerable to hijacking, according to a study released earlier this year by security research firm Trend Micro. It found that the radio signals these crane controllers use are not encrypted over the air in any way, and can be easily intercepted and spoofed using off-the-shelf equipment and a basic knowledge of electronics and radio engineering. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at

    Indiana Court of Appeals Holds That Lease Terms Bar Landlord’s Carrier From Subrogating Against Commercial Tenant

    April 03, 2019 —
    In Youell v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 497 (2018), the Court of Appeals of Indiana considered whether a landlord’s carrier could bring a subrogation claim against a commercial tenant for fire-related damages when the lease, which did not reference subrogation, explicitly required the landlord to maintain fire insurance coverage for the leased premises. The court held that subrogation was barred because the provision requiring the landlord to maintain fire insurance established an agreement to provide both parties with the benefits of insurance. The Youell case establishes that, in Indiana, if the lease explicitly states that the landlord will maintain fire casualty insurance for the building, the lease evidences an agreement by the parties to shift the risk of loss to the insurer. This agreement bars a landlord’s insurance carrier from subrogating against a commercial tenant in the event of a casualty. In 2013, the building owner, Greg Dotson, began leasing a commercial building to Robert Youell for his tire business, Best One Giant Tire, Inc. (collectively, Youell). The lease agreement required that the landlord maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the building and the leased premises. The lease also required the tenant to purchase fire and extended coverage insurance for its personal property. The lease did not mention subrogation. Dotson obtained a property insurance policy through Cincinnati Insurance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    April 22, 2019 —
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Tenth Circuit found that exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 were ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case. MTI, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). Western Farmers Electrical Cooperative (WFEC) owned cooling towers which were serviced by MTI, Inc. Wausau provided a CGL policy to MTI. In 2011, MTI found that anchor bolts in Cooling Tower 1 were corroded. WFEC hired MTI to make repairs by installing new anchor castings with anchor bolts and anchor adhesive. On May 23, 2011, MTI employees removed all of the corroded anchor bolts in Tower 1. Because the adhesive applicator had not yet arrived, MTI did not immediately install new anchor bolts. On the night of May 24, strong winds struck the tower, causing it to lean and several structural components broke. Due to the extent of the structural damage, removal and replacement of the tower was determined to be the only viable option. 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

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    March 18, 2019 —
    The United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question. In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina. The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Providing “Labor” Under the Miller Act

    January 28, 2019 —
    A recent opinion out of the Northern District of California discusses the “labor” required to support a Miller Act payment bond claim on a federal construction project. It is a good case that discusses the type of labor required to support a Miller Act payment bond claim. In Prime Mechanical Service, Inc. v. Federal Solutions Group, Inc., 2018 WL 619930 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a prime contractor was awarded a contract to design and install a new HVAC system. The prime contractor subcontracted the work to a mechanical contractor. The mechanical contractor with its sub-designer prepared and submitted a new HVAC design to the prime contractor and provided 4-5 onsite services to determine the location and layout for the new HVAC equipment, perform field measurements, obtain security passes, and plan site access and crane locations. The mechanical contractor submitted an invoice to the prime contractor and the invoice remained unpaid for more than 90 days, which the prime contractor refused to pay. The mechanical contractor than filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    March 27, 2019 —
    What may be the nation’s largest dam removal project—delayed for years by regulatory and legal disputes of a utility, stakeholders and states over licensing and environmental permits—now may have new momentum after a hard-hitting January federal appeals court ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Building in the Age of Technology: Improving Profitability and Jobsite Safety

    June 10, 2019 —
    New virtual design and construction (VDC) technologies are quickly shifting how the AEC industry is designing, documenting and building. From the use of new software, apps and laser scanners, to the deployment of drones and robots, many early adopters are benefitting from fully integrating these solutions into their workflows. Virtual and Augmented Reality In an industry where collaboration is becoming increasingly important, regardless of the firm size, VR is enabling stakeholders to “see” and “walk” through a building before ground is broken. In other words, teams can foresee issues, ask questions and provide feedback in the preconstruction phase. The inclusion of AR and VR in the daily workflows of AEC firms signifies expedited decision-making, reduced rework and real-time collaboration, which in turn translates to a reduction of unexpected costs. Reprinted courtesy of Maria Laguarda-Mallo, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Ms. Laguarda-Mayllo may be contacted at

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    March 27, 2019 —
    The purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals. Introduction and Background Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement. Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at