BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington testifying construction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington structural concrete expertSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural 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


    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit with Additional Million

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Wall Street Is Buying Starter Homes to Quietly Become America’s Landlord

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    Nation’s Top Court Limits EPA's Authority in Clean Air Case

    Construction Executives Should Be Dusting Off Employee Handbooks

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect, Bad Faith Claims

    JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Replace Lawyers Anytime Soon

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    Unfair Risk Allocation on Design-Build Projects

    New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

    Unjust Enrichment and Express Contract Don’t Mix

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Flood Insurance Claim Filed in State Court Properly Dismissed

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Building Inspector Refuses to State Why Apartments Condemned

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Editorial: Qatar Is Champion of Safety Hypocrisy in Migrant Worker Deaths

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Delays and Suspension of the Work Under Fixed Price Government Contract

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Is It Time to Get Rid of Retainage?

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    Malerie Anderson Named to D Magazine’s 2023 Best Lawyers Under 40

    More Musings on Why I Mediate

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    Firm Pays $8.4M to Settle Hurricane Restoration Contract Case

    Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Contractor Sues License Board

    June 30, 2011 —

    Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

    Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

    Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

    Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    April 01, 2015 —
    When a parking space in Manhattan costs $136,000 and only 15 percent of San Francisco's homes are affordable for the middle class, it's easy to worry that another housing bubble is around the corner. The vast majority of American homeowners have little to fear: A new gauge from Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, Ohio, suggests the national market is in its best shape since 2001 and there's no reason to fear a national downturn, no less a bursting bubble. In its first data release, the national Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets rose to 109.8 in the fourth quarter. Values greater than 100 indicate a robust industry. The index uses local data in 373 metropolitan statistical areas that are underlying drivers of the housing market, including measures on employment changes, demographics and the mortgage market. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg and Nina Glinski, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Housing Markets Continue to Improve

    February 11, 2013 —
    The National Association of Home Builders reports that for a sixth consecutive month there has been an increase in the number of housing markets that have shown improvement. The January report saw 242 improving markets, which in February grew to 259. The NAHB notes that there are now improving markets in every state, “suggesting that the housing recovery has substantial momentum.” Not all markets showed continued improvement. Three metropolitan areas were dropped from the list of improving markets, but another twenty were added. The NAHB has been tracking this data since September 2011, when there were only twelve improving markets through the whole country. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

    June 21, 2024 —
    Part I of this series, SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:
    • From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
    • SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
    • Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.
    This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    November 03, 2016 —
    In a public works dispute in Massachusetts, a Massachusetts Court judge ruled that a general contractor could not recover any of its over $14 million claim against a public owner because it had violated its contract with the Owner by certifying that it had paid its subcontractors in full and on time when in fact it had not.[i] The case involves a contract dispute arising from a state and federally-funded project to design and construct a fiber optic network in western Massachusetts. The Owner was a state development agency established and organized to receive both state and federal funding to build a 1,200–mile fiber optic network known as MassBroadband123 in Western Massachusetts (the Project). Of that amount, $45.4 million was awarded pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). One of the stated goals of ARRA was (as its title suggests) to create jobs in the wake of the 2008 recession and to provide a direct financial boost to those impacted by the economic crisis. In the context of the instant case, that meant that, if there were to be subcontractors on the job providing labor and materials, they needed to be paid on a timely basis in keeping with the statutory purpose of stimulating the economy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki James Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    August 14, 2018 —
    It bugs the Mrs. that I have a habit of reading the directions. “Just plug the darn thing in!” said the Mrs. when we got a new coffee maker to replace our old one which we’ve had since I think before we were married (Life Lesson No. 347: Get a coffee maker you really, really like because they last forever). “But . . . the directions?,” I said. By the time I had finished reading the instruction manual I could smell the coffee brewing in the kitchen. Granted, the Mrs. is more practical than I am in many ways (e.g., “You know, you didn’t need to buy 10 cans of corn to get the 10 for $10 discount. I guess you’re going to be eating a lot of corn”). But still. What might have happened if there was a serious coffee mishap? And worrier as I may be mishaps can happen if you don’t read the directions. James Zenovic didn’t read the directions, and here’s his story . . . Von Becelaere Ventures, LLC v. Zenovic In Von Becelaere Ventures, LLC v. Zenovic, Case No. D072620 (June 6, 2018), James Zeonovic doing business as James Zeonovic Construction entered into a construction contract to build a single-family house for Von Becelaere Ventures, LLC in Laguna Beach, California. The construction contract included an arbitration provision that stated: If any dispute arises concerning this Contract or the interpretation thereof, of concerning construction of the Improvements, or the Limited Warranty, customer service, defects, damages, or obligations therewith (a “Construction Dispute”), such Construction Dispute will be settled by binding arbitration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Albert v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (No. B257792, filed 4/28/15, ord. pub. 5/20/15), a California Court of Appeal held that an insured’s trimming of a neighbor’s trees which allegedly damaged the trees was not an accident or occurrence covered by her homeowners insurance, despite a mistaken and good faith belief as to where the property line lay. Ms. Albert was sued by her adjoining neighbor, who alleged damage to his property when she erected an encroaching fence and pruned nine mature olive trees on his property. The two parcels shared a reciprocal roadway easement providing for access to the main public road. At some point, Ms. Albert erected a fence that was subsequently determined to be on the neighbor’s land, and which enclosed a grove of nine mature olive trees. Ms. Albert claimed that the trees straddled the property line and were mutually owned. She pointed out that she had regularly been notified by the Los Angeles Fire Department to clear the area, and that she had been trimming the trees for years. Thus, she claimed a good faith belief that the trees were hers and that she was required to trim them. Contending that her trimming had caused severe damage by reducing the aesthetic and monetary value of the trees, the neighbor sued alleging causes of action for trespass to real property and trees; abatement of private nuisance; declaratory relief; and for quiet title. He sought treble damages under Civil Code sections 733 and 3346, for injury to timber or trees. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    November 13, 2023 —
    Effective October 1, 2023, there were changes to Florida’s statutory scheme dealing with construction projects. This includes Florida’s Lien Law. A copy of these changes can be found below which identify additions in blue and deletions with strikethroughs. No different than before, if you have questions or concerns as to your statutory rights on a construction project, do the prudent thing, consult a construction lawyer. A construction lawyer can help you understand changes to the applicable statutory scheme or how the statutory scheme pertains to your rights. This is important because you want to make sure you understand statutory changes that apply to your work and rights. A noteworthy change, bolded in blue below, is that there is now a basis to lien for a contractor performing construction management services “which include scheduling and coordinating construction and preconstruction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services”:
    Fla. Stat. s. 713.01 (8) “Contractor” means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with the owner of real property for improving it, or who takes over from a contractor as so defined the entire remaining work under such contract. The term “contractor” includes an architect, landscape architect, or engineer who improves real property pursuant to a design- build contract authorized by s. 489.103(16). The term also includes a licensed general contractor or building contractor, as those terms are defined in s. 489.105(3)(a) and (b), respectively, who provides construction management services, which include scheduling and coordinating preconstruction and construction phases for the construction project, or who provides program management services, which include schedule control, cost control, and coordinating the provision or procurement of planning, design, and construction for the construction project.
    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