BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington architecture expert witnessSeattle Washington contractor expert witnessSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington building code compliance 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


    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Party Cannot Skirt Out of the Very Fraud It Perpetrates

    Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire

    Accessibility Considerations – What Your Company Should Be Aware of in 2021

    Helsinki is Building a Digital Twin of the City

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

    Contractor Changes Contract After Signed, Then Sues Older Woman for Breaking It

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    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

    Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles

    California Commission Recommends Switching To Fault-Based Wildfire Liability Standard for Public Utilities

    When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage

    Construction Continues To Boom Across The South

    Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Carwash Prosecutors Seek $1.6 Billion From Brazil Builders

    Effectively Managing Project Closeout: It Ends Where It Begins

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    South Carolina “occurrence” and allocation

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.

    The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

    Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance

    Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana

    The Godfather of Solar Predicts Its Future

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    A WARNing for Companies

    Keep It Simple: Summarize (Voluminous Evidence, That Is...)

    Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

    New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

    Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again

    Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

    How to Build a Water-Smart City

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    NYC Shuts 9 Pre-Kindergartens for Health, Safety Issues

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners
    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

    Nomos LLP Partners Recognized in Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    August 16, 2021 —
    Nomos LLP partners Garret Murai and Jennifer Tang have been recognized in Thompson Reuter’s 2021 Northern California Super Lawyers and 2021 Northern California Rising Start lists in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the eighth consecutive year for Garret on the Super Lawyers list and the fifth consecutive year for Jennifer on the Rising Star list. The Super Lawyers list recognizes no more than 5 percent of attorneys in each state. The Rising Stars list recognizes no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state. To be eligible for inclusion in Rising Stars, a candidate must be either 40 years old or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

    October 21, 2024 —
    The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how well written contracts and timely legal action can make all the difference in resolving disputes between municipalities, general contractors, and subcontractors. The ruling favored Aqua Engineering; a subcontractor that played a role in a wastewater treatment facility project gone wrong. The court’s decision highlighted key legal principles, including the economic loss rule and the importance of well-structured contracts in construction disputes. Whether you are a subcontractor looking to avoid undue liability or a general contractor seeking to ensure subcontractors shoulder their fair portion of responsibility, this case offers valuable lessons for all parties involved in construction projects. The Background: A Wastewater Project with Issues In 2008, the Town of Mancos, Colorado, hired Souder, Miller & Associates (“SMA”) to design a new wastewater treatment facility. SMA subcontracted Aqua Engineering to help implement a specific wastewater treatment system known as the Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (“MSABP”). However, after construction, the facility never worked as expected. For years, the Town faced ongoing issues, and despite Aqua’s involvement in attempts to fix the problems, the facility remained dysfunctional. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    December 09, 2019 —
    Do you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance. Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at nkrebs@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower

    November 17, 2016 —
    Dennis Herrera, San Francisco’s city attorney, filed a lawsuit against the developer of the Millennium Tower, “for failing to inform buyers that it was sinking ‘much faster than expected,’” reported the New York Times. Mission Street Development sold more than 400 units in the skyscraper. “They went ahead and sold condominiums for a handsome profit without telling the buyers about the situation,” Mr. Herrera told the New York Times. “This is every homeowner’s worst nightmare.” The spokesman for the development, P.J. Johnson, stated that “the allegations by the city attorney had ‘no merit,’ and that the “building had sunk within ‘predicted, safe ranges’ during the entire sales process,” according to the New York Times. Furthermore, Johnson asserted that the problem derived from the nearby railroad station removing water from the ground, which “had caused the building to ‘settle beyond the 12 inches it was predicted to settle.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    August 17, 2020 —
    From structural collapses to fires, the construction industry has experienced a number of high-profile catastrophes over the past decade. These disasters test the mettle of even the most experienced risk professionals and the strongest insurance programs. Issues can arise in all facets of the company’s contracts and insurance policies, and dealing with the aftermath is an extensive and demanding process that can involve many players. As overwhelming as the task may seem, however, it is possible for general contractors to get through the disaster with minimal uncovered exposure if proper steps are taken. By understanding some of the exposures a general contractor faces after a catastrophic loss and implementing key risk transfer strategies from the outset of a project, risk professionals can minimize the impact of a loss on the company in the short and long term. Understanding Possible Risk Exposures When a catastrophic loss occurs, contractors face a wide array of potential exposures. Unfortunately, many large catastrophic losses involve serious bodily injuries and even loss of life. If such a tragedy occurs, the general contractor can reasonably expect to be named in a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Depending on the scope of the project and the area associated with the loss, the catastrophe may also prompt a wide range of bystander claims, from dust inhalation to emotional distress. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

    October 11, 2021 —
    In Florida, damage caused by faulty workmanship constitutes “property damage;” however, the cost of repairing or removing defective work does not. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Auchter Company, 673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (Auchter). But what happens when the cost of repairing or removing defective work results in loss of use of the tangible property which is not physically injured? The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was recently faced with this question in Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company, No. 21-11199, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27317 (11th Cir. Sep. 10, 2021). Tricon arose out of the construction of a condominium. Tricon was hired to serve as general contractor for the project and hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings. The railings installed by the subcontractor were defective and damaged, improperly installed, and failed to meet the project’s specifications. Tricon filed an insurance claim with Nautilus Insurance Company, the subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurer, for the cost to remove and replace the railings.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    June 21, 2021 —
    In the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.” 5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

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

    February 21, 2013 —
    In a prior blog post, we summarized the Court of Appeals decision in the case of AC Excavating, Inc. v. Yale, ___ P. 3d. ___, 2010 WL 3432219 (Colo. App. Sept. 2, 2010) which provided an interpretation of the Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute, C.R.S. § 38-22-127 (hereafter “the Trust Fund Statute”). A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and held that capital loans infused into a limited liability company which performed construction could be subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute. The Court of Appeals reasoned that this determination was necessary because the statute was considered applicable to “all funds disbursed on a construction project.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the provider of funds was not relevant, and that the statute applied “irrespective of the [originator of the funds]’s intended use of the funds.” This decision was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court in an opinion released on February 4, 2013, and it reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. See, Yale v. AC Excavating, Inc., ___ P. 3d. ___, 2013 WL 441895 (Colo. Feb. 4, 2013). The Supreme Court strongly disagreed that loaned or infused capital funds which were obtained by the general contractor entity were “funds disbursed on a construction project,” simply because some of the infused monies were used for operational purposes to pay down specific project obligations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
    mann@hlmrlaw.com