BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Grant County Oregon concrete tilt-up expert witness Grant County Oregon Medical building expert witness Grant County Oregon office building expert witness Grant County Oregon high-rise construction expert witness Grant County Oregon townhome construction expert witness Grant County Oregon hospital construction expert witness Grant County Oregon housing expert witness Grant County Oregon tract home expert witness Grant County Oregon mid-rise construction expert witness Grant County Oregon multi family housing expert witness Grant County Oregon parking structure expert witness Grant County Oregon retail construction expert witness Grant County Oregon condominiums expert witness Grant County Oregon institutional building expert witness Grant County Oregon low-income housing expert witness Grant County Oregon casino resort expert witness Grant County Oregon industrial building expert witness Grant County Oregon custom home expert witness Grant County Oregon landscaping construction expert witness Grant County Oregon Subterranean parking expert witness Grant County Oregon condominium expert witness Grant County Oregon
    Grant County Oregon window expert witnessGrant County Oregon roofing construction expertGrant County Oregon engineering consultantGrant County Oregon construction claims expert witnessGrant County Oregon expert witness roofingGrant County Oregon construction defect expert witnessGrant County Oregon fenestration expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Grant County, Oregon

    Oregon Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (HB 2525 Chap. 701; HB2389) If an owner sends a builder a notice of defect within the time allowed for the owner to commence a court action against that contractor, the time for the owner to commence the action shall be extended, notwithstanding any statute of limitation or statute of ultimate repose, until the later of 120 days after written receipt of builders intention to repair, replace the defect, make monetary compensation or reject the claim. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 14 days to inspect the alleged defect. They then have no more than 90 days to communicate their intention The homebuyer must respond to the builder response within 30 days of receipt. The law requires builder notifies homebuyer of NOR before purchase.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Grant County Oregon

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Lincoln County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3858
    PO Box 440
    Tangent, OR 97389

    Grant County Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Willamette Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 3805
    PO Box 440 32054 Old Hwy 34
    Tangent, OR 97389

    Grant County Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Baker County Chapter
    Local # 3802
    3470 10th St
    Baker City, OR 97814
    Grant County Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Lane County
    Local # 3824
    1065 River Rd
    Eugene, OR 97404

    Grant County Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Marion and Polk Counties
    Local # 3878
    385 Taylor St NE
    Salem, OR 97301

    Grant County Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Oregon Home Builders Association
    Local # 3800
    375 Taylor St NE
    Salem, OR 97301

    Grant County Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Central Oregon Builders Association
    Local # 3810
    61396 S Hwy 97 Ste 203
    Bend, OR 97702

    Grant County Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Grant County Oregon


    Subcontrator’s Insurer Must Reimburse for Defense of Contractor

    Scientists Are Trying to Make California Forests More Fire Resilient

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC recognized by Construction Executive in The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™ of 2025

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building

    How Wildfires Upended California’s Insurance Market

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

    New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts

    House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

    CSLB Reminds California Public Works Contractors to Renew Their Public Works Registration

    NIBS Consultative Council Issues Moving Forward Report on Healthy Buildings

    Feds Withdraw $4.9B Conditional Loan Guarantee for Grain Belt Express Power Line

    Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    GRSM Partner Gretchen Harris Sperry Featured in ABA Article on Importance of Appellate Counsel in Trial Proceedings

    Insufficient Notice of Commencement and Construction Lien Rights

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin

    LEEDigation: A Different Take

    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    Micromobility in Smart Cities: Keeping the Wheels in Motion

    Energy Efficiency Ratings Aren’t Actually Predicting Energy Efficiency

    Bridges Need More Attention

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

    Powering Data Centers in a Moving Regulatory Landscape: Positioning Deals Before FERC’s Next Move

    Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2024 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Credibility Matters…Even in Delay Claims

    Ohio Supreme Court Blocks Ballot Measure Targeting $4B AWS Data Center

    With Trump's Tariff Talk, Time to Negotiate for Escalation Clauses in Construction Contracts

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    Mountain States Super Lawyers Recognizes 26 Utah Snell & Wilmer Attorneys in 2025 Rankings

    A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

    Recognize: A Construction Safety Week Technical Bulletin

    Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction
    Corporate Profile

    GRANT COUNTY OREGON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Grant County, Oregon 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 Grant County'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
    Grant County, Oregon

    Additional Insureds Obligated to Meet Self-Insured Retention

    October 20, 2026 —
    The federal district court found that the additional insureds had to meet the policy’s self-insured retention before a duty to defend was triggered. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Premier Design & Build Group, LLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXXIS 170741 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2026). Amerisure issued CGL and umbrella policies to Premier Design & Build Group, LLC. Amerisure had the right and duty to defend in certain suits for property damage under both policies. Premier contracted with MG East, LLC (MGE) to build three buildings. After the buildings were constructed, MG filed suit against Premier in state court, seeking recovery for allegedly defective installation of the roof, flashing, and gutters on each of the buildings. Premier had subcontracted with Tecta American Sough Florida, Inc. to install the flashing. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Louisiana Legislature Enacts Act 932 – Significant Changes to Insurer Bad-Faith Exposure for Failure to Settle

    July 13, 2026 —
    The Louisiana Legislature has enacted Act 932 (formerly House Bill 1162), which became law this week without the Governor's signature pursuant to the Louisiana Constitution, after expiration of the applicable constitutional review period. Act 932 makes several important amendments to Louisiana's insurer bad-faith statute and appears intended, at least in part, to address issues arising from the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 169 So.3d 328 (La. 2015). The Act also makes changes regarding claim payments involving licensed contractors. The Act takes effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways Act 932:
    • Limits certain bad-faith causes of action (bad faith failure to settle) involving personal injury and bodily injury claims where good-faith disputes exist or where an insurer has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to a settlement demand.
    • Requires insurers and adjusters to verify a contractor's Louisiana license status before issuing claim payments when a contractor is named as a payee on a check for repair or restoration of immovable property.
    • Creates a statutory safe harbor protecting insurers from bad-faith penalties and attorney fees when payment delays result from an inability to verify a contractor's license, provided specified documentation and notice requirements are met.
    Reprinted courtesy of Tabitha R. Durbin, Lewis Brisbois and Jennifer E. Michel, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Durbin may be contacted at Tabitha.Durbin@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Michel may be contacted at Jenny.Michel@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

    D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations for PFAS as State-Law Settlements Highlight Expanding Liability Landscape

    September 15, 2026 —
    On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).) The decision leaves EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designations in place and provides guidance on the scope of EPA’s authority to make future hazardous substances designations under CERCLA Section 102(a). The decision also likely resolves a challenge to the rule that has spanned two presidential administrations. After taking office, the Trump administration had obtained an abeyance of the litigation challenging the Biden-era rule while EPA reconsidered its position. In September 2025, EPA informed the court that it had decided to retain the designations, while signaling that it would work with Congress and industry to address CERCLA liability concerns for “passive receivers.” The litigation then resumed, with the current Administration defending the rule. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    Greg Katz Quoted in Insurance Journal Article About How Big Data & AI Are Driving Up Verdicts, Settlements

    October 06, 2026 —
    National Managing Partner Greg Katz was recently quoted in an Insurance Journal article about how plaintiff's lawyers are harnessing big data and artificial intelligence to attempt to drive up jury awards and settlement demands. The article, titled "The Big Data/AI ‘Revolution’ Is Driving Up Verdicts, Settlements as Plaintiffs Buy In," points out that a growing number of personal injury and claims law firms, some of which are working with an influx of cash from investors and litigation funders, are using a multitude of high-tech tools to try to gain an advantage in litigation. They are using large online mock juries to test legal theories, big data to find sympathetic jurors and venues in which to try cases, and AI programs to analyze their own arguments and those of opponents. “They’re taking instincts and intuition out of the equation,” Mr. Katz told Insurance Journal. “They think they’ve come up with a different way to ring the bell and, in their words, add zeroes to awards.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Late Notice Bars Insured’s Claim for Wind Damage

    June 29, 2026 —
    The court found that a six-month delay in reporting damage from wind did not comply with the policy’s notice requirements. Touchmark Hotel Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61910 (S.D. N. Y. March 24, 2026). A storm caused damage to Touchstone’s hotel on January 4, 2023. Touchstone’s corporate representative, Rohit Patel, testified that he was not at the property on the day of the storm. In a telephone call the next day, the manager of the property reported to Patel that he observed detached shingles from the roof the hotel in the parking lot. Patel testified that he did not file a claim at that time because Touchmark’s employees did not detect any water leakage in the building and because he did not believe that the cost of the damage from the storm would exceed the policy’s deductible. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Actual Controversy Without Actual Exhaustion: California Supreme Court Allows Declaratory Relief and Bad Faith Claims Against Excess Insurers

    August 24, 2026 —
    California courts were previously split on the issue of whether an insured may bring declaratory relief claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance. Some California courts held that the actual exhaustion of underlying insurance was necessary, whereas other courts allowed for these types of claims to proceed.[1] Recently, the California Supreme Court addressed this split of authority and, in doing so, handed down a significant win for policyholders. In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., the Court held that insureds may proceed with bringing forth viable declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers prior to the exhaustion of underlying insurance.[2] A summary of the Court’s opinion is provided below. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kyle A. Rudolph, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Rudolph may be contacted at KRudolph@sdvlaw.com

    Not Every Job Is Worth Winning: Contract Risk Questions Contractors Should Ask Before They Bid

    September 29, 2026 —
    Introduction Winning the work is not the same as winning the project, at least financially. Consider a contractor that commits to procure custom or long-lead materials before receiving complete construction documents. Depending on the language of the contract, if the final design is altered after those materials have been ordered, the contractor may be left responsible for replacement costs, procurement delays, or both. Alternatively, a subcontractor that accepts a pay-if-paid provision without investigating the owner’s financing, or prematurely waives lien rights, potentially risks nonpayment for properly performed work. Such concessions can quickly transform an apparently profitable project into a significant financial burden. A successful bid can therefore become an unsuccessful project if the contractor accepts contractual “red flags” without evaluating their consequences and the long-term financial impacts that they may have. The significance of each risk will depend on the project, the parties, the proposed contract, applicable law, and the contractor’s business objectives. Although not comprehensive, this article identifies several key considerations for that process to help mitigate certain risks. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jack Mayo, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Mayo may be contacted at jmayo@joneswalker.com

    Insured General Contractor Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment to Establish Builder’s Risk Coverage

    July 06, 2026 —
    The general contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment successfully established that damage to footings in place before the policy period was covered after the collapse of a building. Big D Builders, Inc. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72012 (D. Idaho March 31, 2026). Big D was the general contractor for building a new airplane hangar by erecting a 38,000 square foot structure. Before Big D began construction, the site of the hangar did not contain any pre-existing structures or buildings. Before completion of the hangar, it collapsed and caused extensive property damage. The builder’s risk policy issued by Zurich covered certain aspects of the construction project for the policy period December 28, 2023, to December 28, 2024. Zurich accepted coverage for most of the damage but not for damage to footings and columns installed prior to the start date of the policy. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com