BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting architect expert witnessSeattle Washington stucco 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


    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?

    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims

    Code Changes Pave Way for CLT in Tall Buildings and Spark Flammability Debate

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    Remote Depositions in the Post-Covid-19 World

    Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/30/23) – AI Predicts Home Prices, Construction’s Effect on the Economy, and Could Streamline Communications for Developers

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME

    Are Millennials Finally Moving Out On Their Own?

    Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

    At Least 23 Dead as Tornadoes, Severe Storms Ravage South

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Stop - In the Name of the Law!”

    When Every Drop Matters, Cities Turn to Watertech

    Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

    A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Insurers Dispute Sharing of Defense in Construction Defect Case

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    WSHB Expands into the Southeast

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

    California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits

    San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

    California Assembly Bill Proposes an End to Ten Year Statute of Repose

    For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Is it time for a summer tune-up?

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Want a Fair Chance at a Government Contract? Think Again

    New Standard Addresses Wind Turbine Construction Safety Requirements and Identifies Hazards
    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. Leveraging 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

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    October 19, 2017 —
    Does your construction contract require you to arbitrate (instead of litigate) disputes arising out of the contract? If so, and you want to arbitrate, you do NOT want to do anything inconsistent or adverse with your right to arbitrate. Arbitration can be waived and you do not want arbitration to be waived if you believe this is the best forum to resolve your construction dispute. For instance, actively participating in a lawsuit through the prosecution or defense of issues in the lawsuit is certainly inconsistent with your right to arbitrate. This will result in a waiver of your right to compel arbitration. In a non-construction dispute—a dispute involving a law firm and its former partner—the law firm sued the partner. Chaikin v. Parker Waichman LLP, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2165b (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). There was a partnership agreement that required disputes to be resolved by arbitration. The law firm sued the partner claiming he violated a previously entered employment agreement that did not require arbitration. When the partner counterclaimed, the law firm claimed that the counterclaim must be compelled to arbitration because the counterclaim arose out of the partnership agreement that required arbitration. Guess what? The trial court actually compelled the counterclaim to arbitration! Crazy! Clearly, any employment agreement and partnership agreement were intertwined such that the dispute would involve the same set of facts and any claims would have a significant relationship to the partnership agreement. 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

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    July 30, 2014 —
    Fewer new U.S. homes were sold in June than forecast and May data showed the biggest downward revision on record, painting a picture of a housing market that is struggling to gain traction. Sales of newly built homes declined 8.1 percent to a 406,000 annualized pace, the fewest since March and less than any economist surveyed by Bloomberg forecast, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. That followed a May reading of 442,000 that was 12.3 percent lower than estimated last month. Restrictive lending rules, limited land supply, higher mortgage rates and more expensive properties are keeping a lid on how much the housing recovery can accelerate. Continued employment gains and bigger increases in wages will be needed to support further growth in the industry, which has stalled since interest rates started climbing last year. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
    Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    November 30, 2020 —
    Force majeure clauses have been standard in contracts dating back hundreds of years in the United States—and even longer in Europe. “Force majeure,” which is French for “greater force,” removes liability for unforeseen events that prevent parties from fulfilling contractual obligations. In a year defined by the COVID-19 pandemic, these clauses have gone from boilerplate basics to something worthy of further examination and attention in order to minimize risk for all parties involved in a construction project. Prior to COVID-19, drafters might have considered a localized or regional event that would lead to invoking a force majeure clause. It is doubtful, however, that anybody envisioned the impact on such a world-wide scale. UNDERSTANDING THE AGREEMENTS Force majeure clauses cover unforeseen events, a broad term that encompasses both acts of God and human-caused incidents. These range from natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes to acts of terrorism, strikes, political strife, government actions, war and other difficult- or impossible-to-predict disruptions. When such an event occurs, the force majeure clause attempts to remove, or at least reduce, uncertainty as to the rights and liabilities of the parties to the agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Michael E. Carson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Carson may be contacted at michael.carson@nationwide.com

    Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

    December 10, 2015 —
    Toll Brothers Inc. plans to use competitive pricing and offer buyers incentives to speed up sales at some of its New York City condominium projects. “There are certain units in certain locations within a building that are hot, and then there are other units that may be in a dark, cold corner that you have to incentivize a bit more,” Chief Executive Officer Douglas Yearley said on the company’s earnings conference call Tuesday. While Toll “will not fire-sale it to move” units, “we will price to the market.” Incentives would be offered for certain units at Pierhouse at Brooklyn Bridge Park and 400 Park Ave. South and 1110 Park Ave. in Manhattan, Yearley said. While the supply in New York City has grown most for condos selling for more than $7.5 million, most of Toll’s units are less expensive, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    November 02, 2017 —
    There is ostensibly a big difference between an insurance carrier DENYING coverage and simply asking for additional information, as permitted under the post-loss conditions of a property (first-party) insurance policy, right? Typically, the answer is yes and there is a big difference. If an insured refuses to comply with post-loss conditions under their insurance policy, they are shooting themselves in the foot (in most cases) by giving the insurer an out when it comes to coverage. If an insurance carrier denies coverage, however, the insurance carrier cannot then require its insured to comply with post-loss conditions in the property insurance policy. 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

    SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

    July 15, 2019 —
    For nearly 36 years, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) severely frustrated, if not all but foreclosed, a property owner’s right to bring a claim in federal court based on a regulatory taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, a property owner whose land has been “taken” by the government is entitled to just compensation. There are two types of takings direct or “inverse” or regulatory takings. A direct taking is where the government declares that it needs your land for public use and offers to pay you compensation. You might disagree with the amount offered – and that often is the case. But, a mechanism exists whereby a neutral third party – a condemnation board – will arrive at the compensation that is owed. On the other hand, an inverse condemnation or regulatory taking occurs when the government takes some action that restricts the use of the land in such a way as to severely impact it beneficial economic use. For example, if you own a strip of commercial property and intend to develop it and then the municipality comes along and suddenly changes the zoning classification of the parcel such that you can no longer develop it in a beneficial way, then you might have a regulatory takings case. Under the Court’s Williamson County decision, property owners falling within the later category were required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court under a claim that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The problem with this is that, as the Supreme Court explained, it creates a Catch-22. If property owners exhaust their state remedies and the state remedies result in an unfavorable outcome, the federal court is powerless to overturn that decision under the doctrines of res judicata and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Well, yesterday, the Court overturned Williamson County, in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). There the Court held unequivocally a “property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under Section 1983 at that time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    April 03, 2013 —
    In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013). The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete. Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

    April 15, 2015 —
    In Britton v. Girardi (No. B249232 – Filed 4/1/2015), the Second Appellate District upheld the trial court’s dismissal due to the statute of limitations based on an inference it drew from a letter attached to the complaint, while reaffirming its prior application of the limitations period in Probate Code section 16460 for fraud claims in the related case of Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2/27/2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105. In Britton, just as in Prakashpalan, the plaintiffs sued the attorneys who had represented them in connection with claims against their insurer arising out of the Northridge earthquake. In 1997, the attorneys had settled that litigation for more than $100 million. The plaintiffs allege that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty by (1) failing to provide an accounting for the settlement, (2) failing to obtain their informed consent to the settlement, and (3) concealing their misappropriation of the settlement funds. They claim that they did not discover this wrongdoing until nearly fifteen years later, in 2012, when the Prakashpalans contacted them about their settlement. Significantly, the plaintiffs attached as an exhibit to the complaint a page of the November 3, 1997 letter to the Prakashpalans (rather than the plaintiffs), which stated that a retired judge who presided over the settlement had determined the allocations and the attorneys could not distribute the proceeds until the plaintiffs signed the “Master Settlement Agreement” by which the plaintiffs agreed to its terms and to give up all claims against the insurer. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of