• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington office building expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington custom home expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington condominiums expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington production housing expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington tract home expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington concrete tilt-up expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington institutional building expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington townhome construction expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington parking structure expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington custom homes expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington multi family housing expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington structural steel construction expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington industrial building expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington landscaping construction expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington high-rise construction expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington housing expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington casino resort expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington condominium expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington Medical building expert witness Bainbridge Island Washington
    Bainbridge Island Washington fenestration expert witnessBainbridge Island Washington construction expert witness public projectsBainbridge Island Washington building code expert witnessBainbridge Island Washington engineering expert witnessBainbridge Island Washington soil failure expert witnessBainbridge Island Washington expert witnesses fenestrationBainbridge Island Washington construction scheduling expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Bainbridge Island, Washington

    Washington Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (SB 5536) The legislature passed a contractor protection bill that reduces contractors' exposure to lawsuits to six years from 12, and gives builders seven "affirmative defenses" to counter defect complaints from homeowners. Claimant must provide notice no later than 45 days before filing action; within 21 days of notice of claim, "construction professional" must serve response; claimant must accept or reject inspection proposal or settlement offer within 30 days; within 14 days following inspection, construction pro must serve written offer to remedy/compromise/settle; claimant can reject all offers; statutes of limitations are tolled until 60 days after period of time during which filing of action is barred under section 3 of the act. This law applies to single-family dwellings and condos.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Bainbridge Island Washington

    A license is required for plumbing, and electrical trades. Businesses must register with the Secretary of State.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Spokane
    Local # 4966
    5813 E 4th Ave Ste 201
    Spokane, WA 99212

    Bainbridge Island Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    MBuilders Association of King & Snohomish Counties
    Local # 4955
    335 116th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98004

    Bainbridge Island Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
    Local # 4944
    5251 Auto Ctr Way
    Bremerton, WA 98312

    Bainbridge Island Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of North Central
    Local # 4957
    PO Box 2065
    Wenatchee, WA 98801

    Bainbridge Island Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    Bainbridge Island Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Jefferson County Home Builders Association
    Local # 4947
    PO Box 1399
    Port Hadlock, WA 98339

    Bainbridge Island Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    MBuilders Association of Pierce County
    Local # 4977
    PO Box 1913 Suite 301
    Tacoma, WA 98401

    Bainbridge Island Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Bainbridge Island Washington

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    Home Building Up in Kansas City

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    How BIM Can Serve Building Owners

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

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

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

    Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

    Another Guilty Plea in Las Vegas HOA Scandal

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

    Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

    Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Bainbridge Island, Washington Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Bainbridge Island'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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Bainbridge Island, Washington

    What is a Personal Injury?

    September 03, 2019 —
    Essentially, a personal injury is when an individual is hurt during an accident. Whether driving on the road, walking down the street, or sitting in a chair, accidents happen. When there is an accident, medical treatment may be necessary. Individuals who sustain injuries usually seek compensation for their medical treatment and pain and suffering in the form of a personal injury lawsuit. Personal injury lawsuits can result from a variety of claims including negligence, strict liability, or intentional torts. Yet, for the most part, personal injury lawsuits tend to arise from a claim of negligence. The individual or entity injured in the accident, “Plaintiff”, files a lawsuit against the individual or entity, “Defendant” who allegedly caused harm. Personal injury lawsuits resulting from claims of negligence tend to have two main components: liability and damages. Yet, in order to prevail in a suit for negligence, a Plaintiff must demonstrate the following: (1) a legal duty to use due care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a reasonably close, causal connection between that breach and Plaintiff’s resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage to Plaintiff. Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412. First, a finding of negligence rests upon a determination that the actor has failed to perform a duty of care owed to the injured party. Ronald S. v. County of San Diego (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 887. This means that an individual or entity must act reasonably to avoid injuring others. When an injury occurs, a Plaintiff will generally argue that an individual or entity breached a duty owed to them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    May 06, 2019 —
    On March 29, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued two separate rulings that reversed and set aside energy and environmental decisions made by the current administration, which had revoked decisions made in these same matters by the prior administration. The cases are League of Conservation Voters, et al., v. Trump (concerning the development of oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)) and Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, et al., v. Bernhardt, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (which concerns a Land Exchange that would facilitate the construction of a road between two remote Alaska communities when that road would traverse parts of a designated national wilderness). In the League of Conservation Voters matter, the District Court held that the President’s Executive Order 13795 (released on April 28, 2017), which purported to revoke President Obama’s decisions to withdraw certain OCS tracts from oil and gas exploration and development, was unlawful because it was not authorized by Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). In 2015 and 2016, President Obama issued Presidential Memorandums and an Executive Order withdrawing these particular tracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    August 06, 2019 —
    It doesn’t take much to be catastrophically wrong in construction; some bad information, a touch of misleading intel, a few biased opinions mixed with human error and perhaps a little bad luck to top it off. A poor decision early in a project plants itself like a weed—it grows benignly at first, and becomes gravely pervasive at the end. Being wrong in construction is dangerous. Error leads to leaning towers and broken buildings. Poorly-built structures can hinder economic growth and deprive communities of good infrastructure. For the enterprise, bad decisions can lead to massive financial loss and—worse—human loss on a jobsite. Despite knowing all the dangers, it seems that flawed data, misleading intel and human error have become traits the industry can’t shake. To be clear, construction is one of—if not the most—complex industry in today’s economy. Companies walk a tight rope between a 2% margin on one side and ruinous loss on the other. Under such conditions, it’s easy to see why sustained good judgement is difficult. Reprinted courtesy of Bassem Hamdy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Texas Approves Law Ensuring Fair and Open Competition

    August 20, 2019 —
    Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law Neutrality in State Government Contracting (H.B. 985), which ensures Texas’ entire skilled construction workforce--96% of which does not belong to a labor union--can compete on a level playing field for public works contracts to build projects utilizing state funding or credit. The law, introduced by Rep. Tan Parker and sponsored by Sen. Kelly Hancock, prohibits project labor agreements from being mandated on certain taxpayer-funded construction projects. Based on the latest data available from the Census Bureau, state and local governments in Texas spent more money on public construction projects than any other state in 2017. Reprinted courtesy of Nick Steingart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Steingart may be contacted at

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    May 27, 2019 —
    Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . . Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al In this case, English, a general contractor, entered into a contract for Quality Assurance (QA) functions with RK&K, the defendant, on a contract English entered into with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Needless to say, because this would not be a post at Musings otherwise, there were issues with the QA performed by RK&K leading to additional costs for English to correct certain work that did not comply with the contract documents between VDOT and English. English sued for breach of contract based upon a term sheet, signed by the parties, from RK&K that required RK&K to indemnify English for claims by VDOT that related to RK&K’s work (the English Term Sheet). RK&K moved to dismiss the complaint based upon a different term sheet, also signed by the parties, which stated that RK&K could not be held responsible for English’s failure to perform pursuant to the contract documents (the RK&K Term Sheet). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill 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

    Mixed Reality for Construction: Applicability and Reality

    July 22, 2019 —
    One technology available to the digital contractor for mapping what’s happening in the physical world with the 3D models is mixed reality. Mixed reality often includes both augmented reality and virtual reality. Preconstruction Phase During the preconstruction design phase, mixed reality can be used for a number of tasks, such as:
    • conducting design iterations;
    • communicating designs to owners;
    • visualizing the impact of design changes;
    • discovering design and coordination clashes; and
    • mocking up virtual interior designs.
    Marketing Mixed reality can also be used to create marketing material, such as a virtual showroom. Imagine being able to show a potential client what the building will look like. For example, the client, wearing mixed-reality glasses, can see the physical neighborhood with the building or can take a virtual “walk” through of an apartment before it it is even completed. Reprinted courtesy of A. Vincent Vasquez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    September 23, 2019 —
    On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at