BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building code expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestrationSeattle Washington structural concrete expertSeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington consulting engineersSeattle 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


    For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key

    NYC Hires Engineer LERA for Parking Garage Collapse Probe

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    School for Building Trades Helps Fill Need for Skilled Workers

    Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

    In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    Reconstructing the Francis Scott Key Bridge Utilizing the Progressive Design-Build Method

    Hunton’s Alice Weeks Selected to the Miami Dade Bar’s Circle of Excellence for Insurance Litigation

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

    Breath of Fresh Air

    Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

    California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

    “Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

    The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage

    ASCE Joins White House Summit on Building Climate-Resilient Communities

    Brown and Caldwell Appoints Stigers as Design Chief Engineer

    Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Court Holds That Public Entity Can Unilaterally Replace Subcontractor Under California’s Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    Appraisal Goes Forward Even Though Insurer Has Yet to Determine Coverage on Additional Claims

    Cleveland Condo Board Says Construction Defects Caused Leaks

    Hotel Claims Construction Defect Could Have Caused Collapse

    New Research Shows Engineering Firms' Impact on Economy, Continued Optimism on Business Climate

    Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit

    Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

    Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Seattle's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    September 25, 2018 —
    What are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? This is an important question, right? It is probably the most important part of your case. If you didn’t have damages, you wouldn’t be in a dispute. So, I repeat, what are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? The below case explains dealing with a contractor that elected to walk off the job mid-construction. In Forbes v. Prime General Contractors, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D20194a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), owners hired a contractor to perform a residential renovation job for $276,000. The owners were to pay the contractor in five draw payments (common for residential jobs) where the third draw payment was due upon the contractor’s completion of the dry-in (as defined in the contract). After the contractor received the first two draw payments totaling $138,000 plus an additional $6,000 for updated architectural plans, the contractor claimed the job doubled in price and demanded that the owners pay the contractor the third draw payment immediately (before it was due) plus an additional $31,450. The contractor refused to continue unless the owners agreed to its terms, and then walked off the job when the owners would not agree to these terms (nor should the owners agree to those terms). At the time the contractor walked off the job, the owners’ home was not habitable due to the construction. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence

    May 10, 2012 —

    Coverage for construction defects continues to be hotly contested in Hawaii state and federal courts. In a recent decision, Judge Mollway felt bound to follow the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2004), where the court found construction defect claims arise from breach of contract, not from an occurrence. Judge Mollway’s most recent decision on the issue is Illinois Nat. Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Constr., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58464 (D. Haw. April 26, 2012).

    Nordic constructed a grocery store for Safeway. In addition to the grocery store, Nordic built a 165-space rooftop parking deck, retail shops and related improvements. After opening for business in 2007, Safeway experienced significant leaks. Safeway demanded that Nordic repair the parking deck. Nordic sent the demand letter to the insurer, who agreed to appoint counsel subject to a reservation of rights.

    Safeway filed suit against Nordic in state court alleging, among other things, breach of contract and negligence. The insurer provided Nordic with a defense, but Nordic hired independent counsel.

    The insurer filed for declaratory relief in federal district court.

    Read the full story…

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

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

    June 28, 2021 —
    Too often, construction professionals engage with each other to handle a project or series of projects and instead of memorializing their terms in writing, the agreement between the parties consists of nothing more than a conversation and a handshake. Both parties put their trust in each other that the terms they discussed will be honored. Nevertheless, one (or both) of the parties may eventually determine that their trust was misplaced, resulting in a big-money, big-headache dispute. By having a written contract at the commencement of their relationship, these issues could have been avoided. Here are nine reasons to have a written contract. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew A. Margolis, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Margolis may be contacted at mmargolis@sbwh.law

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases

    May 20, 2015 —
    On May 7th, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its much anticipated ruling in Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., 2015COA65 (Colo. App. May 7, 2015). By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control. When it set up the Association, Metro Inverness included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    October 01, 2014 —
    The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination of no coverage for construction defects based upon the policy's prior work exclusion. Yu v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5966 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2014). Plaintiff was the owner and developer of a hotel. She contracted with ATMI Design Build to act as general contractor to construct the hotel. C&A Framing Company was a subcontractor to provide rough framing for the project. In May 2003, ATMI fired C&A before it had completed all the work required by the subcontract. After May 2003, C&A never returned to the construction site. Notice of Completion for the project was recorded April 15, 2004. In September 2004, Landmark issued to C&A a CGL policy for the period September 18, 2004 to September 18, 2005. The policy was later cancelled, effective January 14, 2005. The policy contained an endorsement entitled, "Exclusion - Your Prior Work." The exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' arising out of 'your work' prior to 9/18/04." 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

    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    January 22, 2024 —
    A Canadian partnership including energy developer TC Energy that is building the $10.6-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline, and a key project contractor, are disputing more than $900 million in project costs in court and in upcoming arbitration. The 670-kilometer line in British Columbia that announced mechanical completion last year is set to carry liquefied natural gas to the LNG Canada export terminal under construction on the province’s Pacific Coast—the country’s first such facility. Reprinted courtesy of David Godkin, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Damage Control: Major Rebuilds After Major Weather Events

    October 21, 2024 —
    More than two feet of rain drenching Fort Lauderdale in a day, baseball-sized hail chunks falling on Minneapolis and the deadliest wildfire in more than a century destroying more than 2,100 acres of Maui—2023 was a stark reminder that Mother Nature is a force to be reckoned with. In total, $28 billion dollars’ worth of extreme weather and climate-related disasters ripped across the U.S. last year—a new record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And there’s no relief in sight: 2024 is already the second-busiest tornado season on the books, and wildfires were burning in Oregon, California, Montana and Texas as this issue went to print. Part of dealing with disasters is preparing for their impact to infrastructure, and Roland Orgeron Jr.—who co-founded New Orleans-based Legacy Industries with business partner Blake Couch in 2016—has been helping clients do just that. “We do a lot of consulting to identify vulnerabilities, and we offer action plans for companies based on potential storm scenarios,” Orgeron Jr. says. Some of those clients include large oil and gas companies with operations along the Mississippi River that cannot afford to be shut down for any extended period. “Before Hurricane Ida hit, we pre-positioned equipment inside some facilities, and we had guys responding the day after the storm to clear the area and assess the damage,” Orgeron Jr. says. During the immediate response to Hurricane Ida in 2021, the company’s work involved more than keeping the business locations up and running; they needed to help a business’ employees find a place to live. “We have a home stabilization contract with one oil and gas company designed to make sure their employees can get back to work as comfortably and quickly as possible,” Orgeron Jr. says. Reprinted courtesy of David McMillin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    April 15, 2014 —
    On April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain. Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of