• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Burien Washington custom homes expert witness Burien Washington townhome construction expert witness Burien Washington tract home expert witness Burien Washington condominiums expert witness Burien Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Burien Washington condominium expert witness Burien Washington hospital construction expert witness Burien Washington Medical building expert witness Burien Washington multi family housing expert witness Burien Washington housing expert witness Burien Washington custom home expert witness Burien Washington casino resort expert witness Burien Washington office building expert witness Burien Washington institutional building expert witness Burien Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Burien Washington parking structure expert witness Burien Washington low-income housing expert witness Burien Washington structural steel construction expert witness Burien Washington industrial building expert witness Burien Washington high-rise construction expert witness Burien Washington landscaping construction expert witness Burien Washington
    Burien Washington building code compliance expert witnessBurien Washington defective construction expertBurien Washington stucco expert witnessBurien Washington construction claims expert witnessBurien Washington expert witnesses fenestrationBurien Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessBurien Washington expert witness concrete failure
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Burien, 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 Burien 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
    Building Industry Association of Clark County
    Local # 4908
    103 E 29th St
    Vancouver, WA 98663

    Burien Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lower Columbia Contr Assoc
    Local # 4922
    PO Box 2306
    Longview, WA 98632

    Burien Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities
    Local # 4911
    10001 W Clearwater Ave
    Kennewick, WA 99336

    Burien Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lewis-Clark Home Builders Association
    Local # 1310
    1313 6TH ST
    CLARKSTON, WA 99403

    Burien Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Central Washington Home Builders Association
    Local # 4909
    3301 W Nob Hill Blvd
    Yakima, WA 98902

    Burien Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of Washington-State
    Local # 4900
    111 W 21st Avenue
    Olympia, WA 98501

    Burien Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Olympia Master Builders
    Local # 4933
    1211 State Ave NE
    Olympia, WA 98506

    Burien Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Burien Washington

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

    Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

    Blackstone Suffers Court Setback in Irish Real Estate Drama

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

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

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

    Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

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

    New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    Am I Still Covered Under the Title Insurance Policy?

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Falls Requiring Time Off from Work are Increasing

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits

    Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

    Common Law Indemnity Claim Affirmed on Justifiable Beliefs

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

    General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects

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


    The Burien, Washington Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Burien'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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Burien, Washington

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    April 13, 2020 —
    Governments throughout the world have issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents stay at home except for “essential” purposes. As a result, in the United States, more than a third of Americans have been ordered to stay at home. This, in turn, has had a direct impact on construction projects which have slowed or have been temporarily shuttered altogether, and it will (not may) have an impact on the flow of project funds. So what can project owners and contractors do? We’ve got a few tips. 1. Read Your Contract, Paying Particular Attention to Force Majeure, No Damages for Delay and Notice Provisions For the most part, with the exception of statutory rights and remedies which we will discuss below, your contract spells out your rights and remedies should the proverbial “S” hit the fan. It is, in other words, the rules you agreed to, and you should know what those rules provide. Three provisions you should look for, and if they’re in your contract, you should review carefully are: (1) Force majeure provisions; (2) No damages for delay provisions; and (3) notice provisions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Is There Direct Physical Loss Under A Property Policy When COVID-19 is Present?

    April 06, 2020 —
    Most property policies provide coverage for property damage only when there is "direct physical loss" to covered property. Early indications are that COVID-19 remains on surfaces. The duration can last from a few hours to three weeks, depending on the type of surface material. If an employee is infected and the store or restaurant must closed because the virus may rest on surfaces within the building, is there direct physical loss, even though the building structure itself is unharmed? To answer this question, cases from jurisdictions outside Hawaii may provide guidance. In a case from Louisiana, the homeowner had to move out of her home when excessive levels of organic lead were discovered in the kitchen, living room, master bedroom, and attic. Widder v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 82 So. 3d 294 (La. Ct. App. 2011). The insurer denied coverage because there was no direct physical loss. The trial court agreed; since the home was still intact, no direct physical loss had occurred, so there was no coverage under the policy. The appellate court reversed. It compared the presence of inorganic lead in the home to cases that found a direct physical loss from the existence of Chinese drywall, from which gaseous fumes were released, rendering the home unusable or uninhabitable. Physical damage was not necessary. What if smoke from a nearby wildfire fills an outdoor theater, forcing cancellation of performances and loss of business income? This was the situation in Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Inc. Co., 2016 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 74450 (D. Ore. Jun 7, 2016). Wildfires in the area caused smoke, soot, and ash to accumulate on the surface of seats and concrete ground of the open-air theater. The air quality was poor, but no federal, state or local agency ordered cancellation of the performances. Further, the theater did not suffer any permanent or structural damage to its property. The insurer denied coverage, contending that the loss or damage must be structural to the building itself. After all, the smoke in the air at the theater did not require any repairs to the structure of the property. The court disagreed. The theater sustained "physical loss or damage to property" when the wildfire smoke infiltrated the theater and rendered it unusable for its intended purpose. The decision in Oregon Shakespeare Festival was eventually vacated by a joint stipulation of the parties. Oregon Shakespeare Festival Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins.Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33208 (D. Ore. March 6, 2017), but the reasoning is still sound. 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

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    April 06, 2020 —
    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed by the President on March 18, 2020 and will become effective no later than April 2, 2020. The law contains numerous updates to the country’s employment regulations in response to the Coronavirus pandemic of which employers should be familiar. Of particular note, the FFCRA makes limited amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Now, pursuant to the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”) employees may take up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave after having worked with the employer for 30 calendar days if the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to the employee’s need to care for a son or daughter under 18 years of age due to the child’s school closure or unavailability of a childcare provider due to a public health emergency, i.e., COVID-19. Unlike the FMLA, which does not apply to many small employers, this requirement applies to any employers with 500 or fewer employees. No mileage radius requirement exists under the EFMLEA. When an employee utilizes leave pursuant to EFMLEA, the first 10 days of that leave may consist of unpaid leave, but the employee may elect to substitute any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave, including the Emergency Paid Sick Leave provided for by the Act and described below). All subsequent days of leave taken by the employee after the tenth day must be paid by the employer at a rate of not less than two thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise normally be scheduled to work. The cap is $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    May 18, 2020 —
    In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (No. H044890; filed 1/16/20, ord. pub. 2/13/20), a California appeals court ruled that commercial general liability insurance for personal and advertising injury, defined to include malicious prosecution, does not cover a Walker Process antitrust cause of action under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act for using a fraudulently procured patent to attempt to monopolize the market. Travelers insured KLA under commercial liability policies with coverage for personal and advertising injury liability, which was defined as “injury, other than ‘advertising injury’, caused by. . . (2) Malicious prosecution.” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    July 27, 2020 —
    As an almost universal rule here in Virginia, failing to show up for court or respond to a lawsuit is a bad idea. Consequences include default judgment against you without the right to defend or make your case. Courts simply enter judgment and the consequences of that judgment will follow. However, and as is often the case around here, there are small exceptions where the courts of Virginia allow the defaulting party off the hook. Sullivan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. KBE Building Corporation is just such a case. In Sullivan Mechanical, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia was faced with a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment from KBE. The facts are laid out in the opinion, but basically come down to the usual subcontractor not paid by the general contractor and general contractor has reasons for non-payment. Subcontractor, Sullivan Mechanical, sued KBE and KBE failed to respond in a timely manner. One day after the deadline for response had passed, Sullivan moved for entry of default and the clerk entered the default that same day. KBE moved to vacate the default a mere 6 days after entry of default. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Value in Recording Lien within Effective Notice of Commencement

    August 03, 2020 —
    Construction lien priority is no joke! This is why a lienor wants to record its construction lien within an effective notice of commencement. A lien recorded within an effective notice of commencement relates back in time from a priority standpoint to the date the notice of commencement was recorded. A lienor that records a lien wants to ensure its lien is superior, and not inferior, to other encumbrances. An inferior lien or encumbrance may not provide much value if there is not sufficient equity in the property. Plus, an inferior lien or encumbrance can be foreclosed. An example of the importance of lien priority can be found in the recent decision of Edward Taylor Corp. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 45 Fla.L.Weekly D1447b (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). In this case, a contractor recorded a notice of commencement for an owner. While an owner is required to sign the notice of commencement that the contractor usually records, in this case, the owner did not sign the notice of commencement. Shortly after, the owner’s lender recorded a mortgage and then had the owner sign a notice of commencement and this notice of commencement was also recorded. When there is a construction lender, the lender always wants to make sure its mortgage is recorded first—before any notice of commencement—for purposes of priority and has the responsibility to ensure the notice of commencement is recorded. Here, the lender apparently did not realize the contractor had already recorded a notice of commencement at the time it recorded its mortgage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

    May 25, 2020 —
    Although construction projects are generally allowed to proceed under most COVID-19 stay at home orders, owners and contractors need to know how to proceed safely on their construction sites. Not only do workers and others on site need to be protected, but implementation of these protocols is also critical to avoid potential liabilities. Last week, the California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety & Health (CAL/OSHA) released guidance regarding safety and health procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at construction sites. A link to the CAL/OSHA Safety and Health Guidance is provided here. While the guidance states that it is not imposing any new legal obligations, it is imperative for businesses to not only be aware of these safety practices, but to incorporate these practices as appropriate on each construction site to protect its employees as well as subcontractors, suppliers and others who may be present on site. Otherwise, owners and contractors face potential exposure to regulatory action, including potential penalties and other liabilities, if they fail to properly incorporate these guidelines into the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) at each construction site. Now is the time to update your current Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) to include recommended protocols for preventing the spread of the Coronavirus. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
    Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at

    Alexis Crump Receives 2020 Lawyer Monthly Women in Law Award

    August 31, 2020 —
    Los Angeles Partner Alexis G. Crump has been recognized with a 2020 Lawyer Monthly "Women in Law Award." In receiving this honor, Ms. Crump joins an elite group of women from around the world who have influenced the legal profession with their experience and expertise. Lawyer Monthly’s "Women in Law Awards" emerged as one of the first industry awards to celebrate the achievements and contributions made by women working globally in the legal sector and in business. Recognizing women at all levels of seniority, the publication seeks to acknowledge the challenges that female legal professionals regularly overcome to serve their clients and perform at their best. “It is an honor to be recognized alongside so many outstanding and accomplished women. I look forward to continuing to support my colleagues in their work and participating in the global network of female attorneys,” Ms. Crump said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Crump, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Crump may be contacted at