BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle Washington delay claim expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert Builders Information
    Seattle, 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.


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Seattle Washington

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


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    MBuilders Association of King & Snohomish Counties
    Local # 4955
    335 116th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98004

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
    Local # 4944
    5251 Auto Ctr Way
    Bremerton, WA 98312

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Spokane
    Local # 4966
    5813 E 4th Ave Ste 201
    Spokane, WA 99212

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of North Central
    Local # 4957
    PO Box 2065
    Wenatchee, WA 98801

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

    MBuilders Association of Pierce County
    Local # 4977
    PO Box 1913 Suite 301
    Tacoma, WA 98401

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

    Jefferson County Home Builders Association
    Local # 4947
    PO Box 1399
    Port Hadlock, WA 98339

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Seattle Washington


    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Contractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the Difference

    WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.

    How A Contractor Saved The Day On A Troubled Florida Condo Project

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    New Report: Civil Engineering Salaries and Job Satisfaction Are Strong and Climbing at a Faster Rate Than Past Reports

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    Viewpoint: Firms Should Begin to Analyze Lessons Learned in 2020

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

    Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Interior Designer Licensure

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    Spearin Doctrine: Alive, Well and Thriving on its 100th Birthday

    Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    Cal/OSHA Approves COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards; Executive Order Makes Them Effective Immediately

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Seattle's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    April 10, 2019 —
    In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983). In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id. The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Cronin may be contacted at tcronin@grsm.com

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    March 18, 2019 —
    As readers of Construction Law Musings can attest, I am an enthusiastic (if at times skeptical) supporter of sustainable (or “green”) building. I am solidly behind the environmental and other benefits of this type of construction. However, I have likened myself to that loveable donkey Eeyore on more than one occasion when discussing the headlong charge to a sustainable future. While I see the great benefits of a privately built and privately driven marketplace for sustainable (I prefer this term to “green” because I find it less ambiguous) building stock and retrofits of existing construction, I have felt for a while that the glory of the goal has blinded us somewhat to the risks and the need to consider these risks as we move forward. Another example reared it’s ugly head recently and was pointed out by my pal Doug Reiser (@douglasreiser) at his Builders Counsel Blog (a great read by the way). Doug describes a project that I mentioned previously here at Musings and that is well described in his blog and in a recent newsletter from Stuart Kaplow (@stuartkaplow), namely, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Philip Merrill Environmental Center project. I commend Doug’s post for a great description of the issues, but suffice it to say that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued Weyerhauser over some issues with a sustainable wood product that failed. While the case was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, the case illustrates issues that arise in the “new” sustainable building world. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

    November 20, 2013 —
    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has named Grace V. B. Garcia one of its 2013 Top Women of the Law. She is an attorney at Morrison Mahoney LLP in Boston, and her practice focuses on construction law, product liability, premises liability, commercial litigation, and American with Disability Act cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Rescission of Policy for Misrepresentation in Application Reversed

    August 17, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's issuance of summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the insured did not make misrepresentations when applying for a policy to cover rental property. Duarte v. Pacific Spec. Ins. Co., 13 Cal. App. 5th 45 (2017). Duarte rented his house to Jennifer Pleasants. Duarte gave her a 45-day notice to quit in February 2012, but she did not leave. Two months later, Duarte applied for landlord-tenant coverage with Pacific. The application was submitted electronically and Pacific issued a policy to Durate the same day. In June 2012, Pleasants filed a lawsuit against Duarte, alleging ten causes of action arising from habitability defects which began in 2009. The suit claimed Pleasants had notified Duarte about the defects, she had suffered emotional distress and physical injury, and over paid rent, and had out-of-pocket expenses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    May 22, 2014 —
    According to Architectural Record, the Harmon Hotel, part of the CityCenter hotel-casino-entertainment complex on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada, “is being razed without ever opening.” MGM Resorts International will be demolishing “the unfinished 27-floor, oval-shaped tower following a protracted legal battle with its contractor, Tutor Perini Corp., over building defects.” Demolition is expected to cost $11.5 million, while the “incomplete construction” had cost $279 million. Problems for the hotel began after the discovery “that reinforcing steel was improperly installed on 15 building floors during construction.” Architectural Record reported that a third-party inspector “had falsified 62 daily reports between March and July of 2008 stating that things were okay when they were not. The findings prompted a temporary project shut-down and eventual building redesign.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law

    December 18, 2022 —
    A room in an eight-bedroom Bed-Stuy brownstone with “charming views.” A five-bedroom “modern Manhattan” home. In a housing market as hot as New York City’s, these units advertised on co-housing companies’ websites sound promising. According to the city’s housing regulations, however, neither is legal. That hasn’t stopped companies from offering the rooms, as renters clamor for affordable living space. With the average studio apartment in Manhattan going for nearly $3,100 a month, newcomers to the city often find living with multiple roommates to be their best affordable-housing option. It’s a trend that startups have jumped on, and one some experts endorse as a way to quickly scale up affordable housing — even though municipal housing laws aren’t on board yet. The reality is that in many cities, housing laws that limit the number of unrelated individuals in a dwelling are still in place. New York, for instance, doesn’t allow more than three unrelated people to live in the same unit. To be sure, New Yorkers often break that law, as expensive housing forces people to find roommates through friends or on sites like Craigslist. But multimillion-dollar companies breaking that law is new.  Reprinted courtesy of Amelia Pollard, Bloomberg and Diego Lasarte, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    February 12, 2024 —
    Language in a contract matters. The word “estimates” or “estimated” matters particularly when it comes to a date certain such as a substantial completion or completion date. Remember this. Here is an example. In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D190a (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), a trial court held that the developer did not complete the construction of five condominium units by the date in the purchase agreements. The developer appealed because “[t]he agreements contain no date certain for the completion of the units, but rather include a clause that ‘Seller estimates it will substantially complete construction of the Unit, in the manner specified in this Agreement, by December 31, 2017, subject to extensions resulting from ‘Force Majeure (the ‘Outside Date’).’” Parque Towers, supra. Another provision in the purchase agreements stated, “[w]henver this Agreement requires Seller to complete or substantially complete any item of construction, that item will be understood to be complete or substantially complete when so completed or substantially completed in Seller’s opinion. Id. 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

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    July 23, 2014 —
    Garret Murai in his California Construction Law Blog stated that “California’s Senate Bill 862, and amended Business and Professions Code 7068.1” has given the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “additional enforcement authority to crack down on phony qualifiers by allowing the CLSB to take disciplinary action against a qualifier and a licensee if the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the licensee’s business.” Murai explained that “[r]enting a qualifier means that you pay an individual who holds a California contractor’s license to act as the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) or Responsible Managing Employee (RMO) of a construction company when they have no actual involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of