BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Ukiah Oregon concrete tilt-up expert witness Ukiah Oregon condominiums expert witness Ukiah Oregon office building expert witness Ukiah Oregon condominium expert witness Ukiah Oregon structural steel construction expert witness Ukiah Oregon Medical building expert witness Ukiah Oregon institutional building expert witness Ukiah Oregon production housing expert witness Ukiah Oregon hospital construction expert witness Ukiah Oregon tract home expert witness Ukiah Oregon housing expert witness Ukiah Oregon landscaping construction expert witness Ukiah Oregon mid-rise construction expert witness Ukiah Oregon custom home expert witness Ukiah Oregon Subterranean parking expert witness Ukiah Oregon low-income housing expert witness Ukiah Oregon casino resort expert witness Ukiah Oregon multi family housing expert witness Ukiah Oregon industrial building expert witness Ukiah Oregon parking structure expert witness Ukiah Oregon townhome construction expert witness Ukiah Oregon
    Ukiah Oregon construction expert witness consultantUkiah Oregon architecture expert witnessUkiah Oregon testifying construction expert witnessUkiah Oregon construction project management expert witnessesUkiah Oregon expert witness commercial buildingsUkiah Oregon building expertUkiah Oregon defective construction expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Ukiah, 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 Ukiah Oregon

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Marion and Polk Counties
    Local # 3878
    385 Taylor St NE
    Salem, OR 97301

    Ukiah Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Ukiah Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Home Builders Association of Metro Portland
    Local # 3862
    15555 SW Bangy Rd Ste 301
    Lake Oswego, OR 97035

    Ukiah Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lincoln County Home Builders Association
    Local # 3858
    PO Box 440
    Tangent, OR 97389

    Ukiah Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Ukiah Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northeast Oregon Chapter
    Local # 3860
    PO Box 436
    Hermiston, OR 97838
    Ukiah Oregon Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Ukiah Oregon


    House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    Pay-If-Paid: What You Need to Know Before Signing on the Dotted Line

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found

    California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th

    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

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

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    Are These Negotiations in Bad Faith? What to Watch For

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

    How New York City Plans to Soak Up the Rain

    Quick Note: October 1, 2023 Changes to Florida’s Construction Statutes

    In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

    Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts: A Roundup

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    AI in AEC 2026: Doing AI Right and Rethinking Your Business Model

    Facing Manslaughter Charges In Worker's 2021 Trench Collapse Death, Colorado Contractor Who Willfully Ignored Federal Law Surrenders To Police

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2020

    The Role of Code Officials in the Design-Build Process

    Court Finds that Subcontractor Lacks Standing to Appeal Summary Judgment Order Simply Because Subcontractor “Might” Lose at Trial Due to Order

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    Want to Make Your Jobsite Safer? Look to the Skies.

    Governor Bob Ferguson’s Recent Executive Orders – A Positive Sign for Washington’s Construction Industry

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    The Legal 500 U.S. 2024 Guide Names Peckar & Abramson a Top Tier Firm in Construction Law and Recognizes Nine Attorneys

    Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
    Corporate Profile

    UKIAH OREGON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ukiah, Oregon Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Ukiah, Oregon

    Land Use Team Wins Appeal for Affordable Senior Housing Development in San Francisco

    February 23, 2026 —
    Sheppard successfully defended client Mitchelville Real Estate Group and its non-profit development partner Bernal Heights Housing Corporation in an appeal of a 70-unit, 100% affordable senior housing development at 3333 Mission Street in San Francisco’s Bernal Heights neighborhood. The team secured approval of the project, representing the developer on complex land use issues including split zoning, SB 35, the State Density Bonus Law, the Housing Crisis Act, tribal cultural resources and the Subdivision Map Act. Although the ministerially approved parcel map for the project utilized SB 35, it was appealed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and unanimously rejected. Sheppard’s real estate transactional team also assisted with the acquisition of the property. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard

    Sixth Circuit Revives Builder’s Risk Coverage, Refusing to Let Insurer Escape on a Technicality

    July 27, 2026 —
    In 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, the Sixth Circuit did something courts do not always do in coverage disputes: it refused to let an insurer avoid liability based on a technical policy condition that could never actually be satisfied. The decision is a straightforward reminder of two core principles. First, policies must be interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent insured. Second, hyper-technical conditions cannot be used to deny coverage where compliance is never possible. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@hunton.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@hunton.com Read the full story...

    Traub Lieberman Wins Affirmation of Judgment on Pleadings Before the Seventh Circuit

    August 16, 2026 —
    Traub Lieberman Partners Dana Rice and Adam Joffe obtained affirmation of judgment from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of an Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its Insured, a Roofing Contractor, in an underlying lawsuit. The Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy with a one-year policy term. The policy included an exclusion that barred coverage for any losses arising out of work the insured completed before the date the policy incepted. Reprinted courtesy of Dana A. Rice, Traub Lieberman and Adam P. Joffe, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rice may be contacted at drice@tlsslaw.com Mr. Joffe may be contacted at ajoffe@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

    At the Intersection of Indemnity and Prevailing Wages

    March 17, 2026 —
    In a case that I’m frankly surprised I don’t see more of, the 2nd District Court of Appeal of California examined an indemnity claim by a subcontractor against a general contractor and public entity who mistakenly believed that a construction project did not require the payment of prevailing wages. The Nabors Case In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach, 108 Cal.App 540 (2025), subcontractor Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. sued general contractor Tidelands Oil Production Company and the City of Long Beach after it was found liable in a class action lawsuit for failing to pay prevailing wages to its employees. Nabors’ contract with Tidelands did not require the payment of prevailing wages and neither Tidelands nor the City believed that the project, which involved “oil well plug and abandonment” work, required the payment of prevailing wages. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    50 State Matrices | 2026 Edition

    March 03, 2026 —
    GRSM’s 50 State Legal Matrices provide a comprehensive, state-by-state snapshot of statutory law across all 50 U.S. states. Spanning critical areas such as indemnification, contractor licensing, labor standards, statute of limitations, and more, this resource enables businesses and counsel to quickly identify key legal requirements and variations across jurisdictions. Designed as a practical starting point rather than definitive legal advice, the Matrices help multi-state operators and attorneys navigate the complex patchwork of laws that can vary dramatically from one state to another. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Bona Fide Dispute Defeats Violation of Prompt Payment Act

    June 15, 2026 —
    Most, if not all, jurisdictions, including the federal government, have what is known as a “Prompt Payment Act.” The objective is to ensure prompt payment. If prompt payment is not made, the Prompt Payment Act provides for interest penalties, as well as potentially other costs such as attorney’s fees. But the thing is, it’s not as simple as untimely payment to support the recourse and interest penalties the applicable Prompt Payment Act affords. And the teeth associated with the applicable Prompt Payment Act are not as sharp as perhaps the party claiming untimely payment prefers. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Surety Liability Is Coextensive with Its Bond Principal

    April 14, 2026 —
    A recent Miller act payment bond case, U.S. f/u/b/o Whitetail General Constructors v. Northcon, Inc., 2026 WL 46671 (D.Mont. 2026), contains a short noteworthy discussion as to a surety’s liability being coextensive with that of its bond principal. If you are bonded, or you are pursuing a bond, you need to appreciate this, which is why this is a noteworthy discussion:
    A “surety’s liability on a Miller Act bond must be at least coextensive with the obligations imposed by the Act if the bond is to have its intended effect.” “Therefore, ‘the liability of a surety and its principal on a Miller Act payment bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of the principal only to the extent that it is consistent with the rights and obligations created under the Miller Act.’” In other words, “[w]here a subcontract’s terms are consistent with the Miller Act’s provisions, the surety’s liability on the Miller Act bond is coextensive with the contractual liability of its princip[al].”
    “The liability of a surety under the Miller Act is controlled by federal law, rather than state contract law[.]” The court may, however, “look to state law when interpreting contractual provisions” in a Miller Act case.
    “[T]he measure of recovery under the Miller Act is generally determined by the terms of the subcontract [or underlying contract].”
    Northcon, supra, at *4-5 (internal citations omitted).
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    White and Williams LLP Secures Trio of Cyber Coverage Wins

    May 12, 2026 —
    Three weeks, three jurisdictions, three cyber wins. White and Williams picked up the first victory on March 9, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the court granted summary judgment to their client enforcing a Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. See Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Cowbell Cyber and Obsidian Specialty Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49409 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2026). In Perry, the insured was deceived into transferring money intended for a vendor to an unintended third party. The insurer acknowledged that the loss was covered and paid the insured the policy’s Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Discontent with a single sublimit, the insured argued that because it wired the money to the fraudster in separate transfers, it was entitled to a second Cyber Crime Loss sublimit. Reprinted courtesy of Gabriel Darwick, White and Williams LLP and Sean Elman, White and Williams LLP Mr. Darwick may be contacted at darwickg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Elman may be contacted at elmans@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story...