BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing expert witness Burien Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Burien Washington Medical building expert witness Burien Washington landscaping construction expert witness Burien Washington office building expert witness Burien Washington hospital construction expert witness Burien Washington institutional building expert witness Burien Washington industrial building expert witness Burien Washington low-income housing expert witness Burien Washington condominiums expert witness Burien Washington structural steel construction expert witness Burien Washington parking structure expert witness Burien Washington housing expert witness Burien Washington casino resort expert witness Burien Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Burien Washington custom home expert witness Burien Washington townhome construction expert witness Burien Washington condominium expert witness Burien Washington retail construction expert witness Burien Washington production housing expert witness Burien Washington concrete tilt-up expert witness Burien Washington custom homes expert witness Burien Washington
    Burien Washington consulting engineersBurien Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessBurien Washington construction scheduling expert witnessBurien Washington architect expert witnessBurien Washington construction project management expert witnessBurien Washington consulting general contractorBurien Washington fenestration expert witness
    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


    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

    California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

    N.J. Governor Fires Staff at Authority Roiled by Patronage Hires

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    Appraisers May Determine Causation

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    One Stat About Bathrooms Explains Why You Can’t Find a House

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    Affirmed

    Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Diggin’ Ain’t Easy: Remember to Give Notice Before You Excavate in California

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Brazil’s Former President Turns Himself In to Police

    Is it time for a summer tune-up?

    Rio Olympic Infrastructure Costs of $2.3 Billion Are Set to Rise

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion

    New Jersey Court Adopts Continuous Trigger for Construction Defect Claims

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    Crowdfunding Comes to Manhattan’s World Trade Center

    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards
    Corporate Profile

    BURIEN WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    July 15, 2019 —
    A general release of “unknown” claims through the effective date of the release does NOT bar “unaccrued” claims. This is especially important when it comes to fraud claims where the facts giving rise to the fraud may have occurred prior to the effective date in the release, but a party did not learn of the fraud until well after the effective date in the release. A recent opinion maintained that a general release that bars unknown claims does NOT mean a fraud claim will be barred since the last element to prove a fraud had not occurred, and thus, the fraud claim had not accrued until after the effective date in the release. See Falsetto v. Liss, Fla. L. Weekly D1340D (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The 2014 [Settlement] Agreement’s plain language released the parties only from “known or unknown” claims, not future or unaccrued claims. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraud claim had accrued — that is, whether Falsetto [party to Settlement Agreement] knew or through the exercise of due diligence should have known about the alleged fraud at the time the 2014 Agreement was executed — the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those fraud claims.”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    May 26, 2019 —

    Fifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.

    Super Lawyers 2019
    AttorneyPractice Area
    John Balaguer PI Defense: Med Mal
    Kevin Cottone PI Defense: Med Mal
    Thomas Goutman Class Action
    David Haase Business Litigation
    Christopher Leise Civil Litigation: Defense
    Randy Maniloff Insurance Coverage
    David Marion Business Litigation
    Peter Mooney Business Litigation
    Michael Olsan Insurance Coverage
    John Orlando General Litigation
    Wesley Payne Insurance Coverage
    Daryn Rush Insurance Coverage
    Anthony Salvino Workers’ Comp
    Patricia Santelle Insurance Coverage
    Andrew Susko Civil Litigation: Defense
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    February 27, 2019 —
    St. Petersburg, Russia (AP) -- Part of the roof and several floors of university building in Russia's second-largest city collapsed Saturday, but officials say there were no casualties. The Emergencies Ministry said the collapse at the Saint Petersburg National Research University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics took place as construction work was underway. An investigation into criminal violation of construction safety has been opened. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Associated Press, Bloomberg

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    June 10, 2019 —
    The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
    Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    February 27, 2019 —
    In Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    August 06, 2019 —
    New York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state’s plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040. On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes. Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state’s 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York’s ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent, Bloomberg

    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

    Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer

    July 31, 2019 —
    On June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion. I. Facts & Procedural History McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. In McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling. II. Case Holding The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow. The Court of Appeal relied upon Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control. Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured. III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims. IV. Conclusion The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control. The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety. Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered. Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of