• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Kings Bay Georgia multi family housing building expert Kings Bay Georgia Medical building building expert Kings Bay Georgia condominiums building expert Kings Bay Georgia structural steel construction building expert Kings Bay Georgia casino resort building expert Kings Bay Georgia parking structure building expert Kings Bay Georgia concrete tilt-up building expert Kings Bay Georgia custom home building expert Kings Bay Georgia mid-rise construction building expert Kings Bay Georgia production housing building expert Kings Bay Georgia custom homes building expert Kings Bay Georgia high-rise construction building expert Kings Bay Georgia hospital construction building expert Kings Bay Georgia institutional building building expert Kings Bay Georgia tract home building expert Kings Bay Georgia housing building expert Kings Bay Georgia condominium building expert Kings Bay Georgia office building building expert Kings Bay Georgia industrial building building expert Kings Bay Georgia townhome construction building expert Kings Bay Georgia landscaping construction building expert Kings Bay Georgia
    Kings Bay Georgia construction code expert witnessKings Bay Georgia consulting architect expert witnessKings Bay Georgia construction safety expertKings Bay Georgia slope failure expert witnessKings Bay Georgia architectural expert witnessKings Bay Georgia OSHA expert witness constructionKings Bay Georgia testifying construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Kings Bay, Georgia

    Georgia Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB 563 stipulates that prior to filing a claim, a homeowner must give the contractor 30 day written notice detailing the nature of the defect. In response, contractor must provide (within 30 days of receipt) a written reply containing an offer of settlement, requirement of inspection or rejection. The law provides definitions relating to construction; offers immunity from liability for certain conditions; and sets up an alternative dispute resolution process.

    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Kings Bay Georgia

    No state license for general contracting required. License is required for Air Conditioning, Electrical, and Plumbing trades.

    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of South GA
    Local # 1194
    PO Box 2950
    Valdosta, GA 31603

    Kings Bay Georgia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Golden Isles Home Builders Association
    Local # 1135
    218 Rose Drive
    Brunswick, GA 31520
    Kings Bay Georgia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Albany & SW GA Inc
    Local # 1108
    PO Box 70424
    Albany, GA 31708

    Kings Bay Georgia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Savannah
    Local # 1188
    7116 Hodgson Memorial Dr
    Savannah, GA 31406

    Kings Bay Georgia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Statesboro Home Builders Association
    Local # 1191
    1223 Merchants Way
    Statesboro, GA 30458
    Kings Bay Georgia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Greater Columbus Home Builders Association
    Local # 1148
    6432 Bradley Park Dr
    Columbus, GA 31904

    Kings Bay Georgia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association Of Warner Robins
    Local # 1196
    PO Box 8297
    Warner Robins, GA 31095

    Kings Bay Georgia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Kings Bay Georgia

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

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

    A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety

    Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Thinking About a Daubert Motion to Challenge an Expert Opinion?

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Maine Court Allows $1B Hydropower Transmission Project to Proceed

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

    Trade Contract Revisions to Address COVID-19

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    Largest US Dam Removal Stirs Debate Over Coveted West Water

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    U.S. Department of Justice Settles against Days Inn

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    Here's Proof Homebuilders are Betting on a Pickup in the Housing Market

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    Loaded Boom of Burning Tower Crane Collapses in Manhattan, Injuring Six

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

    Default, Fraud, and VCPA (Oh My!)

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    Residential Interior Decorator Was Entitled to Lien and Was Not Engaging in Unlicensed Contracting

    Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes
    Corporate Profile


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

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    October 22, 2013 —
    The city of Los Angeles is claiming that problems with the south runway at Los Angeles International Airport are due to construction defects. The city as filed a lawsuit against four of the firms involved in building the runway, CH2M Hill, R&L Brosamer, HNTB, and Tutor-Saliba Corp. The lawsuit also includes the possibility of naming up to 200 individuals or corporations. The suit alleges that the firms incorrectly installed the concrete, leading to accelerated wear. As a result, renovation of the runway will likely have to be done earlier than anticipated. The runway was opened in 2007 as part of a safety improvement effort. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Appellate Court Expands Policyholders’ Ability to Plead and Seek Consequential Damages

    February 27, 2019 —
    In a huge win for policyholders, a New York appellate court, in D.K. Property, Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., held that an insured need not provide a detailed factual description or explanation for why consequential damages are recoverable at the pleading stage. Rather, an insured’s complaint must only (i) specify the types of consequential damages claimed; and (ii) allege that those damages reasonably were contemplated by the parties prior to contracting. Here, D.K. Property’s building was damaged as a result of construction on an adjoining building, and it timely filed a claim with National Union under a policy that covers “direct physical loss or damage to” the building. National Union neither paid the claim nor disclaimed coverage. Instead, according to D.K. Property, National Union made unreasonable and increasingly burdensome information demands over a three-year period, which it alleges was a “tactic” to make pursuing the claim so expensive that D.K. Property would abandon the claim. As a result of the delay, D.K. Property alleges the structural damage to its building has worsened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Paster may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Veterans Day – Thank You for Your Service

    December 05, 2022 —
    Happy Veterans Day[1] to our country’s servicemembers past and present! ACS would like to express its deepest gratitude and respect in saying thank you to those that have served, or are serving, in our armed forces. It undoubtedly takes incredible bravery, fortitude, integrity, respect, and a commitment to our country’s evolving ideals. Some of those same attributes that are necessary for service are also well-geared toward a post-military career in construction. As some already know, Veterans have unique construction contracting opportunities at both the state and federal level. The following is a high-level overview of the process and opportunities for veterans who are not aware or who are considering a career in construction. There are federal and state level opportunities for Veteran-owned businesses. The initial step in accessing federal and state level contracting opportunities is different for each but begins with certification/verification. At the federal level, effective January 1, 2023, all responsibilities for the verification of Veteran-owned small businesses (“ VSOB”) will transfer from the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Small Business Administration.[2] Verification is the process that establishes eligibility for access to Veteran-specific benefits, including certain government contracts and the purchase of surplus government property, by confirming that VSOBs and service-disabled Veteran-owned small businesses (“SDVOSB”) are operated by Veterans.[3] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Colburn may be contacted at

    Professor Senet’s List of 25 Decisions Every California Construction Lawyer Should Know:

    January 17, 2022 —
    1. Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627 – economic loss rule
    2. Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks ( (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 228 – abandonment does not apply to public works – total cost theory is allowed
    3. Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 568 – architect liable in absence of privity
    4. Cates Const., Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28 – no tort recovery on bonds – performance bonds can cover contract warranties
    5. Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 1384 – liability for concealed conditions
    6. Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 803 – mechanic lien remedy is constitutional
    7. Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 541 – indemnity implies obligation to defend [now limited to commercial contracts under CCP 2782 (c)–(h)]
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ted Senet, Gibbs Gidden
    Mr. Senet may be contacted at

    Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance

    January 17, 2022 —
    About 2.3 million American workers are exposed to silica, including those in construction, oil and gas, agriculture and manufacturing. Silica is commonly found in a range of construction materials and when this material breaks apart, small particles are released into the air, creating what’s known as respirable crystalline silica. These particles can get into a person’s respiratory tract, which can lead to a range of serious and potentially fatal illnesses including silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney diseases. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set clear regulations for working with this substance, so construction workers and managers can know the risks of inhaling this substance and protect themselves on the job site. What is Silica? Crystalline silica is a mineral that forms naturally in the earth. Raw construction materials such as sand, stone, concrete and mortar often contain deposits of crystalline silica, which can put employees at risk. Silica becomes a danger to workers when it is released into the air and breathed in. Reprinted courtesy of Rick Pedley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Privilege Is All Mine: California Appellate Court Finds Law Firm Holds Attorney Work Product Privilege Applicable to Documents Created by Formerly Employed Attorney

    June 29, 2017 —
    In Tucker Ellis LLP v. Superior Court (A148956 – Filed 6/21/2017), the First Appellate District held that (1) the holder of the attorney work product privilege is the employer law firm rather than the former employee attorney who created the privileged documents while a firm employee, and (2) as a result, the firm did not owe a duty to obtain the former attorney’s permission before disclosing the subject documents to third parties. In Tucker Ellis LLP, the attorney, while still employed by Tucker Ellis, exchanged a series of e-mails with a consultant retained by the firm to assist in asbestos litigation for a client. The firm also entered into an agreement with the consultant to summarize scientific studies on the causes of mesothelioma in a published review article. After the attorney departed the firm, Tucker Ellis was served with a subpoena in connection with a matter pending in Kentucky for the production of communications with the consultant regarding the article. In response, Tucker Ellis, in relevant part, produced the work product e-mails authored by the former attorney. The e-mails eventually ended up on the Internet and reached over 50 asbestos plaintiffs’ attorneys, resulting in the attorney’s termination from his new firm. After Tucker Ellis ignored the attorney’s “claw-back” letter, he filed suit against the firm for negligence, among other causes of action. The trial court granted the former attorney’s motion for summary adjudication on the issue of duty, reasoning that the firm owed the attorney a legal duty to prevent the disclosure of the work product. Tucker Ellis filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal challenging the trial court’s decision on the duty issue. 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

    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    September 23, 2019 —
    In a decision that will likely be welcomed by the electrical power, chemical manufacturing, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing industries, on July 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in the case of Idaho Conservation League et al., v. Wheeler, that EPA acted reasonably in deciding not to issue CERCLA financial responsibility regulations for the hardrock mining industry. CERCLA (a.k.a., Superfund) was enacted in 1980 and amended in 1986, and Section 108(b) of CERCLA provides that EPA shall promulgate requirements that classes of facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk” associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances. However, no action was taken to implement Section 108(b) until 2009, and then only as the result of litigation challenging EPA’s failure to act. EPA and the petitioners agreed to a schedule by which the agency would propose financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry—which was the initial class of industry facilities selected for the possible application of these rules—and the DC Circuit approved this schedule in 2016, which contained the court’s caveat that EPA retained the discretion not to issue any rule at the conclusion of the rulemaking. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Los Angeles Warehousing Mecca Halts Expansion Just as Needs Soar

    September 05, 2022 —
    Communities in the Inland Empire, the US’s logistics mecca east of Los Angeles, are suspending new warehousing projects to examine the impact from decades of pollution -- putting the industry under pressure when it’s needed most. This week, the city council for Pomona is set to vote on extending a temporary halt on industrial developments to study the environmental impact, while the nearby city of Norco will decide whether to establish a 45-day moratorium. The actions follow similar freezes by a handful of Southern California cities like Riverside, Colton, Chino and Redlands over the past several years. Meanwhile, a state-level bill -- which is a long-shot to pass in the legislature but gives a reading of the mood -- proposes banning large industrial construction within 1,000 feet of non-industrial areas such as schools, homes and playgrounds in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, an area that spans 27,000 square miles. Reprinted courtesy of Ngai Yeung, Bloomberg and Augusta Saraiva, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of