BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington architect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnesses
    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


    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    Architect Named Grand Custom Home Winner for Triangular Design

    Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

    Best Practices After Receiving Notice of a Construction Claim

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

    Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

    Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

    The Devil is in the Details: The Texas Construction Trust Fund Pitfalls Residential Remodelers (and General Contractors) Should Avoid

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

    Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law FirmsTM of 2023 by Construction Executive

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    BIM Legal Liabilities: Not That Different

    Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?

    Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    Homeowner's Claim for Collapse Survives Summary Judgment

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/1/24) – IMF’s Data on Housing, REITs Versus Private Real Estate, and Suburban Versus Urban Office Property Market
    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

    Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

    December 13, 2022 —
    Affirming the district court, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the insured subcontractor was entitled to a defense against claims of faulty workmanship, but no defense was owed to the additional insured subcontractor. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. KNS Group, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27949 (11th Cir. Oct. 6. 2022).  The general contractor on a project to build a casino and hotel hired GM&P Consulting and Glazing Contractors, Inc. (GM&P) to provide exterior glazing for the building. GM&P enlisted subcontractor KNS to assist it by glazing glass and installing window walls. KNS agreed to provide commercial general liability and other types of insurance, and to indemnify GM&P for liability for damages caused by any of its acts or omissions. KNS acquired a policy from Cincinnati.  The casino filed suit against the general contractor and subcontractors, alleging that GM&P installed defective "Glass Facade" and improperly installed windows. GM&P filed a Hird-party complaint against KNS due to KNS's alleged defective construction of the casino. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner

    October 02, 2023 —
    In Cyrus Way Partners, LLC. (“Cyrus”) v. Cadman, Inc. (“Cadman”), the primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in denying Cadman’s motion to vacate the default judgment under Civil Rules 55 and 60. A default judgment is a legal ruling that can be entered in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit. If that happens, the court may resolve the lawsuit without hearing from the other side. In Washington, a party typically has 20 days to appear in a suit before being at risk for default judgment. If a default judgment is entered for the plaintiff, the defendant can move to vacate the default judgment, meaning the defendant hopes the court will set aside the default judgment as if it never happened. In this case, Cadman, the defendant, presents several ultimately unsuccessful arguments for why the default judgment in favor of Cyrus, the plaintiff, should be vacated. Cyrus and Orca Beverage Inc. (“Orca”) are under common ownership. In 2018, Cyrus began a project to build a warehouse for Orca, which included the construction of a large concrete slab. Cadman was hired to supply the concrete. Cyrus hired Olympic Concrete Finishing Inc. (“Olympic”) to finish the concrete. On April 1, 2018, Cadman poured the concrete, and Olympic finished the slab. The next day, Cyrus noticed several problems with the slab, which experts hired by both Cyrus and Cadman opined were caused by an abnormally high air content in the concrete. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    September 13, 2021 —
    The federal district court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement reached on behalf of insureds who suffered property damage due to the 2018 Kilauea eruption on the Big Island. Aquilina v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152614 (D. Haw. Aug. 13, 2021). After destruction of their homes due to lava flow, plaintiffs sued various insurers and agents as a putative class action. Plaintiffs claimed they purchased surplus lines policies brokered and underwritten by various defendants. The policies each contained an exclusion for the peril of lava flow, which plaintiffs claimed rendered them worthless or unsuitable given that their properties were located in a high-risk lava zone. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached obligations under the Hawaii Surplus Lines Act, which required that surplus lines insurers conduct a diligent search for other available coverage before placing a homeowner with surplus lines coverage. Plaintiffs alleged defendants should have advised them of the availability of lava-damage coverage through the Hawaii Property Insurance Association (HPIA), a statutorily created association of admitted insurers established in part in response to Kilauea's eruption patterns, which made the private insurance market less likely to Insure certain high-risk areas. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

    December 20, 2012 —
    With the aftermath of Sandy still being felt up and down the Eastern seaboard, the question of many victims turns to how they can rebuild their lives and homes. One of the first things many people do is call on their insurance carriers to help rebuild whatever damaged property they have. In a recent case here in Colorado, those rebuilding efforts got reaffirmed by a Court of Appeals case, Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Company, --- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 4459112 (Colo. App. September 27, 2012). The facts of the case are pretty straightforward and could describe many repair vendors in numerous situations. Roofing Experts contracted with four homeowners insured by Allstate to repair their damaged roofs. The contracts provided that repair costs would be paid from insurance proceeds. The contracts also allowed Roofing Experts full authority to communicate with Allstate regarding all aspects of the insurance claims. Before work began, Roofing Experts met with adjusters from Allstate to discuss the four homes and the amount of each claim. After receiving approval for the claims, Roofing Experts began the repairs. During construction, Roofing Experts discovered additional repairs were necessary to maintain certain manufacturer’s warranties and to conform to applicable building codes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Iandorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

    February 18, 2020 —
    The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

    Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned

    September 18, 2023 —
    The Florida Court of Appeal overturned the jury's verdict findng loss caused by collapse. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 4474 (Fla. Ct. App. June 28, 2023). The insured homeowners had two claims. One was a 2016 ceiling collapse; the second was loss caused by Hurricane Irma in 2019. The homeowners' policy covered collapse defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building . . . cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." Collapse had to be caused by, among other things, decay or insect damage that was hidden from view. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    August 17, 2011 —

    A newly filed, yet unpublished, court opinion opines that a construction manager cannot file a construction lien in Washington state. So, how far reaching is this opinion?

    In the case of Blue Diamond Group Inc. v. KB Seattle 1, Inc., et al, a New York construction manager filed a lien against the Westfield Southcenter Mall in Tukwila, Washington. The lien was filed after the owner of a coffee stand failed to pay Blue Diamond for consulting services used in the construction of a kiosk.

    Blue Diamond served as the owner’s agent, assisting with managing subcontractors, vendors and other tasks. The manager’s tasks also included paying invoices, managing deliveries, setting schedules and other site managerial tasks. Blue Diamond was not registered as a contractor under Washington’s RCW 18.27.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court’s decision…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors

    September 18, 2023 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome a great friend. Scott Wolfe Jr. (@scottwolfejr)is a construction attorney in Louisiana, Washington and Oregon, and is the founding member of the construction practice Wolfe Law Group. He authors the Construction Law Monitor. He is also the founder of the mechanic lien and preliminary notice filing service, Zlien, and the author of its Construction Lien Blog. Residential construction disputes come in all shapes and sizes, but very typically have one thing in common: they can get very nasty. This is understandable, especially in today’s economy. The homeowner is spending hard-earned money on something very personal to them, their home. They want it done right. The contractor is working on really tight margins, and with a diligent client. 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