BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural expert witnessSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington building code compliance expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect 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


    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    Haight Ranked in 2018 U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" List

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    DC Metro Extension’s Precast Supplier Banned from Federal Contracts

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Insurer Waives Objection to Appraiser's Partiality by Waiting Until Appraisal Issued

    Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    New Home Construction Booming in Texas

    Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

    The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Maybe California Actually Does Have Enough Water

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2024 “Atlanta 500” List

    Domingo Tan Receives Prestigious Ollie Award: Excellence in Construction Defect Community

    Meet the Hipster Real Estate Developers Building for Millennials

    LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

    Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Contractor Sues Golden Gate Bridge District Over Suicide Net Project

    City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

    White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary

    What is a “Force Majeure” Clause? Do I Need one in my Contract? Three Options For Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers to Consider

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests
    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

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    June 05, 2017 —
    According to Daniel E. Evans of Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, Colorado’s state legislature recently passed a bill “designed to reduce litigation risk associated with building condos by requiring a majority of actual condo unit owners, as opposed to a majority of the HOA board members, to approve the filing of a lawsuit over construction defects.” Evans stated that this “legislation cannot be viewed as sweeping reform” and that “future legislative sessions will undoubtedly see additional efforts to reform construction defect litigation.” Perhaps the most significant aspect of HB 1279 is the requirement for a majority of condo owners in a development to approve a lawsuit, Evans reported. Furthermore, HB 1279 “requires the HOA board to notify all condo unit owners and builders about plans to pursue a construction lawsuit. It further requires the HOA board to hold a meeting to allow the board and the developer to present facts and arguments to the individual condo unit owners, including arguments of the potential benefits and detriments of filing a lawsuit.” Unlike its failed predecessors, HB 1279 does not require arbitration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    December 21, 2016 —
    I’ve often wondered just where the term “punch list” came from, and I’ve found a few sources that seem to make sense, while others not so much. Enter the Realm of Conjecture and Opinion One person claims it came from the telephone installer process of “punching down” terminals on a block. That seems a bit of a stretch though. A blog writer said it had to do with the term ‘punch’ since it means to “punch something up” as in fix it. Another blog writer thought it had something to do with a long forgotten practice. Apparently subcontractors used to each have their own hole punches that would punch a hole with a shape unique to them. They would use these punches to indicate they had corrected the deficiency that was their responsibility. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Duane Craig, Construction Informer
    Mr. Craig may be contacted at dtcraig@constructioninformer.com

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    July 11, 2021 —
    What follows is a brief account of some of the notable U.S. environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Nestle USA, Inc. et al. v. Doe, et al. The Supreme Court has decided another important case interpreting the Alien Tort Statute. Released on June 17, 2021, this decision reverses the Ninth Circuit which had ruled that the respondents—six individuals who alleged they were child slaves employed on Ivory Coast cocoa farms, could sue the American-based companies for aiding and abetting child slave labor. Without dissent, the Court rejected this reading of the ATS and affirmed its own recent rulings on the scope of the ATS. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    August 02, 2017 —
    The good ole duty to defend. Certainly, a duty that should not be overlooked. A commercial general liability insurer has two duties to its insured when it comes to third-party claims: 1) the duty to defend its insured and 2) the duty to indemnify its insured. The insurer’s duty to defend its insured will always be broader than its duty to indemnify because this duty is triggered by the allegations in the lawsuit. (For this precise reason, insurers will oftentimes defend their insured under a reservation of rights.) The duty to defend is a very important duty as it is the first duty that typically comes into play when a third-party claim / action is initiated against the insured. Getting the insurer on board to provide a defense is an initial focus. One that cannot be neglected or overlooked. 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

    Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)

    May 10, 2017 —
    Most employers know that companywide policies or practices that do not strictly comply with applicable state or federal employment laws can expose employers to class action lawsuits by large numbers of employees seeking recovery of massive sums in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Unfortunately, traditional class action lawsuits are not the only representative actions employers should be concerned with. Recent litigation trends have shown that California’s lesser known Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) can be equally, if not more harmful to employers than class actions due to steep penalties for minor violations. WHAT IS PAGA? Under PAGA, “aggrieved employees” can sue employers for alleged Labor Code violations. Like class actions, a PAGA plaintiff sues on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other workers. However, unlike class action plaintiffs, PAGA plaintiffs do not seek damages; rather, they seek civil and statutory penalties formerly recoverable solely by state agencies in enforcement actions. The distinction between recovery of damages in class actions and recovery of penalties in PAGA actions reflects the often-insidious nature of PAGA claims. While workers have long alleged “derivative” PAGA claims for penalties in connection with more substantive underlying Labor Code violations (meal or rest break violations, for example), we have seen a recent spike in PAGA suits alleging hyper-technical Labor Code violations with no underlying substantive violation, and where the “aggrieved employees” have suffered no actual harm. WHAT'S AT STAKE? Equally troubling for employers is the method by which significant penalties are aggregated. With a few significant exceptions, penalties generally range from $50 to $250 per violation. At first blush, this may not seem like much, however total penalties rise rapidly when considering that calculations are made on a per-employee and a per-pay period basis. AN EXAMPLE ON HOW PAGA WORKS Consider the following example based on one recent case: Issue: An employee brought a PAGA-only lawsuit on behalf of himself and 400 other “aggrieved employees” against his employer for alleged Labor Code violations. Claim: The employee claimed the employer’s 30-year practice of paying employees 9 days after the close of the applicable payroll period violated Labor Code Section 204(d), which requires payment to be made within 7 days of the close of the payroll period. The employee claimed that, under PAGA, the employer was liable for a minimum penalty of $100 per employee, per pay period, going back at least one year (the statutory limitations period for PAGA claims). Exposure: With 400 employees, 24 pay periods per year, and $100 per violation, the plaintiff sought a minimum of $960,000 in penalties (not including substantial attorneys’ fees, costs and interest also available under PAGA), despite offering no evidence of harm suffered by the employees or prior notice of the issue. OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS In addition to a draconian penalties scheme, there are a myriad of additional aggravating factors for employers involved in PAGA litigation, such as:
    • PAGA plaintiffs are not required to meet the rigorous class certification standards required of class action plaintiffs, meaning plaintiffs’ attorneys may be more likely to bring meritless “strike suits” aimed at obtaining quick settlements based on significant alleged penalties exposure.
    • 75% of PAGA penalties recovered by way of settlement or judgment are directed to the state of California, while the "aggrieved employees” only keep 25%, reinforcing the notion that PAGA claims are frequently attorneys’-fee-driven, rather than for protecting employees.
    STEPS FOR EMPLOYERS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES Fortunately, there are a number of measures employers can take prior to and during wage and hour litigation which can dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, exposure to substantial penalties and damages. This includes:
    1. Regular reviews. Prior to litigation, we recommend regular detailed reviews of company policies and practices in order to identify areas of possible concern and ensure compliance with California’s ever-changing labor laws.
    2. Take action. On receipt of a new PAGA claim, taking immediate action to remedy an alleged violation within the Labor Code’s 33-day “safe harbor” time-period may help limit an employer’s exposure, and could bar a plaintiff from filing suit at all.
    3. Be aggressive. Once a PAGA or class action claim is in litigation, a proactive, aggressive approach to claim evaluation, investigation and litigation is critical.
    For these reasons and more, it’s in an employers’ best interest to monitor these issues closely and seek input when appropriate. Angela Reston-Nunez is a labor and employment attorney in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. For questions regarding PAGA, class action or individual wage and hour issues, or other employment law matters, please feel free to contact Angela Reston-Nunez at (925) 988-3249 or angela.reston-nunez@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

    April 23, 2024 —
    Across the country, there is a split in authority as to whether an insurance company should be allowed to recoup defense costs where it is ultimately determined that the carrier has no duty to defend under the policy and the policy is silent as to such reimbursement. The Hawaii Supreme Court is the latest to enter the fray to address this very question, ruling in favor of policyholders in the recent case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company. Facts of the Case and Procedural History The Bodell case arose in response to a pair of certified questions from the US District Court for Hawaii to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The case involved a group of primary and excess insurers that sold liability policies to Bodell Construction and sought reimbursement of defense costs that the insurers had paid to defend a construction defect claim against Bodell. In the Underlying Action, the District Court ultimately ruled that the claims against Bodell Construction were not covered under the policies. Because the claims were not covered, the insurers demanded reimbursement of the defense fees from Bodell . Having determined there was no Hawaii state law on this issue, and in light of conflicting decisions in the district courts, the US District Court for Hawaii requested guidance from the Hawaii Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amanda C. Stefanatos, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Stefanatos may be contacted at AStefanatos@sdvlaw.com

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    October 10, 2013 —
    A post on The Buckner Blog suggests that “construction defects” are the scariest words for architects, engineers, and contractors. With the possible outcomes of a damaged reputation and astronomical costs, it’s not a surprise. Further, builders are using techniques that “have yet to be tested in real application over time.” As a result, “whoever has the deepest pockets or the most to lose becomes the primary target.” While a commercial general liability policy might pay for damage caused by a construction defect, the post notes that “it does not, however, cover the costs to remedy your work.” That cost could be “greater than the actual property damages incurred.” The post recommends a combination of transferring risk and risk control In transferring risk, the builder uses “indemnification and hold harmless agreements as well as inditional insured requirements in their construction contracts.” They advise to “request coverage as an additional insured on a primary basis.” And then there’s risk control. “Work only with architects, engineers and contactors who have good reputations and a track record of performance. Don’t cut corners.” By some careful planning, builders might “sleep better at night.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

    August 15, 2022 —
    Recently, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado interpreted a faulty workmanship exclusion in a property insurance policy in The Lodge at Mountain Village Owner Association v. Eighteen Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, 22 U.S Dist. Ct LEXIS 48883*, decided on March 18, 2022. The Court held that the faulty workmanship exclusion at issue extended to preclude coverage for later ensuing damage that arose from the faulty workmanship, even though the damage was weather related, because faulty workmanship was the primary cause of the ensuing damage. The claims in The Lodge at Mountain Village arose from maintenance work performed on log siding at three multi-unit condominium buildings in Telluride. The maintenance work to the log siding included staining, finishing, and chinking repairs to joints between the logs. About a year after completion of the work, The Lodge at Mountain Village Owners Association (“The Lodge”) notified the maintenance contractor that logs were extremely weathered and that its work was defective. The Lodge retained an expert who prepared a report stating that the log finish and underlying wood was deteriorating because of the contractor’s work and that some areas were not properly protected from exposure to snow, rain, and brine from ice-melting salt. The Lodge pursued and settled its claims against the contractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com