BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness windows
    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


    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

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

    New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury

    Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured In Northern California Super Lawyers 2021!

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    “Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    No Escape: California Court of Appeals Gives a Primary CGL Insurer’s “Other Insurance” Clause Two Thumbs Down

    Naples, Florida, Is Getting So Expensive That City Workers Can’t Afford It

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season

    "Decay" Found Ambiguous in Collapse Case

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    DIR Public Works Registration System Down, Public Works Contractors Not to be Penalized

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    UK Construction Output Rises Unexpectedly to Strongest Since May

    Texas Considers a Quartet of Construction Bills

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    Investing in Metaverse Real Estate: Mind the Gap Between Recognized and Realized Potential

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Defining Construction Defects

    “Source of Duty,” Tort, and Contract, Oh My!

    Real Case, Real Lessons: Understanding Builders’ Risk Insurance Limits

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart

    Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim
    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

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    November 15, 2021 —
    On Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend. In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    October 12, 2020 —
    The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an insurer has a duty to defend when faced with legal uncertainty as to whether coverage is owed: for example, when there is no Connecticut case law on point, and courts outside of the state have reached conflicting decisions. The Court suggested that an insurer, in these circumstances, should defend the insured, and should seek a declaratory judgment from a court as to whether coverage is owed. The issue in Nash St., LLC v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co.,[1] arose out of a home collapse in Milford, Connecticut. The owner of the home (Nash) hired a contractor (New Beginnings) to renovate the home. New Beginnings, in turn, retained a subcontractor to lift the house and to do concrete work on the foundation. While the subcontractor was lifting the house, the house shifted off the supporting cribbing and collapsed. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwiliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    February 11, 2013 —
    Whether construction defect claims against an insured contractor or subcontractor are covered is undergoing an intense debate in Colorado that is reminiscent of the current coverage battle in Hawaii. Although I missed the case until recently, the decision in Colo. Pool Sys. v. Scottsdale Ins Co., 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1732 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2012), appears to divert from a prior case from the Colorado Court of Appeals, Gen. Sec. Indem. Co. v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009). Gen. Security held that faulty workmanship, standing alone, was not an "accident." Gen. Security was heavily relied upon by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals when it found construction defects arose from breach of contract and were not covered under a liability policy. See Group Builders v. Admiral Insurance Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). In Colo. Pool Sys., Colorado Pool hired subcontractors to construct a poll's concrete shell. After the shell was poured, an inspection noticed that some re-bar was too close to the surface. The owner turned to its general contractor, White Construction Group, and demanded that the pool be removed and replaced. White turned to Colorado Pool, who notified its carrier, Scottsdale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    February 16, 2017 —
    In a decision rendered on January 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reminded policyholders that they are entitled to an explanation of any and all grounds upon which their insurer may be contesting coverage in a reservation of rights letter. Specifically, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc. et al., 1 the court found that an insurer’s reservation of rights, which included a verbatim recitation of numerous policy provisions that the court identified as the “cut-and-paste” method, was insufficient to reserve its rights to contest coverage. In 2003, Heritage Communities, Inc. (“Heritage”), a parent company of several corporate entities engaged in developing and constructing condominium complexes from 1997 to 2000, was sued by multiple property owners’ associations. The lawsuits sought actual and punitive damages against Heritage as a result of alleged construction defects, including building code violations, structural deficiencies, and significant water intrusion. During the period of construction, Heritage was insured by Harleysville Group Insurance (“Harleysville”) under several primary and excess general liability insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    January 02, 2019 —
    Senate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES. California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern. SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code. This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation. California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation. The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    General Contractor’s Ability to Supplement Subcontractor Per Subcontract

    July 10, 2018 —
    As a subcontractor, you need to appreciate that the subcontract you (more than likely) sign is going to have you bear risk associated with furnishing manpower to maintain the prime contractor’s schedule and progress. A subcontractor can factor some of this risk into the lump sum amount it agrees to in the subcontract. But, from the general/prime contractor’s perspective, it is very important that this risk is borne by the subcontractor because there is no such thing as a schedule written in stone. The baseline schedule, whether attached to the subcontract or not, will change. Activities will be re-sequenced. Activities will be added. Activities will overlap. Activity start dates and finish dates will change. It is the nature of construction. As a subcontractor, you know all of this because it is the same no matter the project. Schedules are never written in stone — they change on a regular basis. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    "On Second Thought"

    October 28, 2024 —
    Rehearing requests are seldom granted by courts, and when they are, there’s usually something uniquely compelling in the request and the granting. So is the case in a matter involving monies deposited in the registry of the federal court in New Orleans related to work performed on cleanup after Hurricanes Maria and Irma in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The party depositing monies – which represented subcontract sums paid to it by the general contractor – held back several hundred thousand dollars based on withholding provisions in the various contracts in play. The Court was tasked with evaluating not only a pay-when-paid provision in the subcontract of the claiming party, but also incorporation of the terms of a higher tiered contract which allowed for the withholding. The Court initially granted summary judgment allowing the monies to be withheld. However, on request for rehearing, it was pointed up that while monies could be retained for purposes of covering attorney’s fees and costs related to litigation initiated by the plaintiff subcontractor’s vendors, there was a particular process for that withholding – and an assertion that the process was not followed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

    May 01, 2014 —
    Numerous factual issues prevented the court from deciding at the summary judgment stage whether the additional insured was covered for a personal injury claim that happened on a construction site. Paynes Cranes v. Am States Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40485 (E.D. N.Y. March 26, 2014). Intermetal Fabricators, Inc. hired Paynes to provide a crane and driver for the construction of a store. A construction worker was injured while working with the crane. The injured worker sued several defendants, including Paynes. Intermetal had coverage for the project that included additional insureds. The policy provided, “Any person or organization . . . for whom you [Intermetal] are required by written contract, agreement or permit to provide insurance is an insured, subject to the following additional provisions: a. The contract, agreement or permit must be in effect during the policy period . . . and must have been executed prior to the ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage,’ 'person and advertising injury.’” 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