• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort expert witness Burien Washington condominium expert witness Burien Washington production housing expert witness Burien Washington multi family housing expert witness Burien Washington high-rise construction expert witness Burien Washington low-income housing expert witness Burien Washington office building expert witness Burien Washington townhome construction expert witness Burien Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Burien Washington landscaping construction expert witness Burien Washington custom homes expert witness Burien Washington retail construction expert witness Burien Washington structural steel construction expert witness Burien Washington custom home expert witness Burien Washington institutional building expert witness Burien Washington tract home expert witness Burien Washington parking structure expert witness Burien Washington hospital construction expert witness Burien Washington industrial building expert witness Burien Washington housing expert witness Burien Washington condominiums expert witness Burien Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Burien Washington
    Burien Washington building code expert witnessBurien Washington soil failure expert witnessBurien Washington construction code expert witnessBurien Washington construction expert witnessBurien Washington building envelope expert witnessBurien Washington construction defect expert witnessBurien Washington construction expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Burien Washington

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

    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association of Clark County
    Local # 4908
    103 E 29th St
    Vancouver, WA 98663

    Burien Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Burien Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Burien Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Burien Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Burien Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Burien Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Burien Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Burien Washington

    Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Deductibles Limited to Number of Suits Filed Against Insured, Not Number of Actual Plaintiffs

    Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

    Oregon Condo Owners Make Construction Defect Claim

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

    ISO Proposes New Designated Premises Endorsement in Response to Hawaii Decision

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

    Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?

    Remodels Replace Construction in Redding

    I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Fall to Lowest Since 2012

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    Excess Policy Triggered Once Retention Paid, Even if Loss Not Covered By Excess

    Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

    In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage
    Corporate Profile


    The Burien, Washington Expert Witness Engineer Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Burien, Washington

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    June 10, 2019 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, deciding that there was no breach of the policy for failure to pay for flood damage when the insured failed to obtain a policy under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 570 Smith St. Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co. Inc., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1773 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 4, 2019). The insured's property in Brooklyn was insured by Seneca. Included in the policy was flood coverage in the amount of $1 million with a $25,000 deductible. While the policy was in effect, Hurricane Sandy hit, damaging the property. Plaintiffs timely filed a claim seeking reimbursement of up to policy limits. Seneca paid only $35,883 and later made an additional payment of $33,015. The insured sued for, among other things, breach of the policy for failure to properly indemnify for the losses. Seneca moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the breach of policy claims. Seneca pointed out that the "Other Insurance" provision in the Flood Coverage Endorsement of the policy stated that if the loss was eligible to be covered under a NFIP policy, but there was no such policy in effect, the insurer would only pay for the amount of loss in excess of the maximum limit payable for flood damage under the policy. The maximum NFIP coverage was $500,000. The insured's loss caused by flood was less than $500,000. 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

    London Office Builders Aren’t Scared of Brexit Anymore

    May 26, 2019 —
    For London office developers at least, the Brexit waiting game is over. Developers mostly steered clear of doing new projects on spec in the political upheaval that followed the U.K.’s 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Now the surprising resilience of London’s office market, highlighted by technology giants like Alphabet Inc. committing to open new bases in the city, has convinced them that it’s time to break ground. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jack Sidders, Bloomberg

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

    May 27, 2019 —
    Subrogating insurers often address waiver of subrogation clauses in the form contracts drafted by the American Institute of Architects. In ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Am. Med. Plumbing, No. A-5395-16T4, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 45 (App. Div.), ACE American Insurance Company (ACE) argued that the waiver clause in the AIA General Conditions form A201-2007 did not extend to the post-construction loss at issue. Adopting what the court termed the “majority” position, the Appellate Division held that, by reading §§ 11.3.5 and 11.3.7 together, the waiver applied to bar the insurer’s subrogation claim. The Appellate Court’s ruling makes pursuing subrogation against New Jersey contractors using AIA contract forms more difficult. In this matter, Equinox Development Corporation (Equinox Development), ACE’s insured, contracted with Grace Construction Management Company, LLC (Grace Construction) to build the “core and shell” of a new health club (the Work). Grace Construction subcontracted the plumbing work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (AM Plumbing). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at

    Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

    April 22, 2019 —
    On February 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. City of Roanoke, et al.; the Chesapeake Bay Foundation was an Intervenor-Defendant. The Fourth Circuit held that a large stormwater management fee (stated to be $417,000.00 for the year 2017) levied by the City of Roanoke against the railroad to assist in the financing of the City’s permitted municipal stormwater management system was a permissible fee and not a discriminatory tax placed on the railroad. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 specifically provides that states and localities may not impose any tax that discriminates against a rail carrier, 49 U.S.C. § 11501. Accordingly, the issue confronting the Fourth Circuit was whether the assessment was fee and not a tax. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    May 20, 2019 —
    Larsen v. 401 Main St. Inc., 302 Neb. 454 (2019), involved a fire originating in the basement of the Quart House Pub (Pub) in Plattsmouth, Nebraska that spread to and damaged Plattsmouth Chiropractic Center, Inc., a neighboring business. Fire investigators could not enter the building because the structure was unsafe and demolished. The chiropractic center nevertheless sued the Pub alleging that its failure to maintain and replace basement mechanical equipment caused ignition. To prove its claim, the plaintiff retained a mechanical engineer who reviewed documents and concluded that the fire “originated from a failure of one of the items of mechanical equipment located in the area of the [basement] boiler.” Importantly, however, the consultant could not determine the root cause of the fire, could not eliminate the possibility that the fire originated in a compressor, and could not rule out the building’s electrical service as the ignition source because it was outside his area of expertise. The consultant nevertheless found that the fire most likely would not have occurred if the Pub had regularly serviced and replaced the equipment when needed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Konzelmann, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Konzelmann may be contacted at

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    April 10, 2019 —
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has finalized its long-awaited approach to crane operator qualification and certification. The rule, which has followed a tortuous road to completion, ends the agency’s multi-year effort to conclude its update of safety requirements related to crane and derrick use in construction. The rule establishes a three-pronged approach to ensuring that crane operators can safely operate cranes:
    1. operator training for employees not yet certified to operate cranes;
    2. operator certification via four different permissible options; and
    3. employer evaluation of certified operators.
    Construction employers with employees who operate cranes should assess their training, certification and evaluation programs now to ensure they are fully compliant with the new rule. Reprinted courtesy of Bradford T. Hammock, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    August 13, 2019 —
    Modern man lives under the illusion of being the most intelligent being out there. This is the paradox of human nature; we all want to make the best decisions with the knowledge we have at any given time, but on the other hand, our thinking is largely based on how our ancestors organized the world in their time. Possibly the most tangible example of this in our everyday lives is infrastructure. While there seems to be plenty of candidates offering new solutions to the already existing urban environment, there are not that many looking to challenge the current urban order. Cities are full of talk—but who walks the walk? Re-imagining Urban Environments Olli Hakanen, a long-term specialist in re-imagining workspaces and urban environments, has an extensive background in both architecture and consultancy. His latest venture, Respace, aims to address how urban environments are being developed to better suit the needs of their residents as well as the environment. According to the ideology behind Respace, instead of always building something new, often all that is needed is a re-thinking. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jenni Ripatti, AEC Business
    AEC Business may be contacted at

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    August 06, 2019 —
    Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at