BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington construction expert witness consultantSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting engineers
    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


    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    ASCE Statement on The Partial Building Collapse in Surfside, Florida

    Duty to Defend Bodily Injury Evolving Over Many Policy Periods Prorated in Louisiana

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar

    SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    New Addition to the ASCE/SEI 7-22 Standard Protects Buildings from a 500-year Flood Event

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    Pa. Contractor Pleads No Contest to Prevailing-Wage Charges, Pays Workers $20.7M

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Finding of Bad Faith, Award of Costs and Prejudgment Interest

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Brenda Radmacher to Speak at Construction Super Conference 2024

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List

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

    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    ‘The Ground Just Gave Out’: How a Storm’s Fury Ravaged Asheville

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    New California Construction Laws for 2020

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Safe and Safer

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    New Spending Measure Has Big Potential Infrastructure Boost

    Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

    Don’t Ignore a Notice of Contest of Lien

    Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    Living Not So Large: The sprawl of television shows about very small houses

    Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Act of 2020: Yet Another Reason to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

    New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability

    Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law
    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

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    January 02, 2024 —
    The Hawaii Supreme Court emphatically rejected insurer efforts to seek reimbursement of defense costs absent a provision in the policy providing for such reimbursement in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company, No. SCCQ-22-0000658, 2023 WL 7517083, (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). The state high court’s well-reasoned decision rests on bedrock law regarding insurance policy construction and application, follows the nationwide trend of courts compelling insurers to satisfy their contractual obligations in full, and should carry great weight as other jurisdictions continue to debate the same issue. In Bodell, the Hawaii Supreme Court joined the swelling ranks of courts recognizing that an insurer may not use a reservation of rights to create the extra-contractual “right” to recoup already paid defense costs for a claim on which the insurer ultimately owes no coverage. See, e.g., Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010). Other jurisdictions, such as California, will permit an insurer to seek reimbursement from a policyholder for defense costs incurred in defending claims later determined to be uncovered. See Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 (1997) (holding insurers have a right to reimbursement of defense costs incurred for noncovered claims). Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    June 02, 2016 —
    In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
    A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
    (Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    July 25, 2021 —
    Authorities searching for victims of a deadly collapse in Florida said Sunday they hope to conclude their painstaking work in the coming weeks as a team of first responders from Israel departed the site. Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava said 90 deaths have now been confirmed in last month's collapse of the 12-story Champlain Towers South in Surfside, up from 86 a day before. Among them are 71 bodies that have been identified, and their families have been notified, she said. Some 31 people remain listed as missing. The Miami-Dade Police Department said three young children were among those recently identified. Crews continued to search the remaining pile of rubble, peeling layer after layer of debris in search of bodies. The unrelenting search has resulted in the recovery of over 14 million pounds (about 6.4 million kilograms) of concrete and debris, Levine Cava said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    August 31, 2020 —
    The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction. In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1 Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

    Steven L. Heisdorffer Joins Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    March 27, 2019 —
    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell is pleased to announce that Steve Heisdorffer has joined the firm as Special Counsel. Steve joins the firm after having been a partner at Godin & Baity, LLC for the last twenty-five years. Mr. Heisdorffer represents construction professionals in construction defect disputes and advises them regarding risk mitigation and transfer. Mr. Heisdorffer is an experienced trial lawyer that has tried commercial disputes and construction defect cases in arbitration forums and courts over the last 28 years. In addition, he has successfully represented large and small companies in commercial disputes, including computer software performance and intellectual property disputes, taking several to trial. Steve has also acted as a counselor to technology companies. Steve has expertise drafting and negotiating development agreements, distributor agreements, license agreements, and service agreements for his technology clients. Mr. Heisdorffer graduated with high honors from both the University of Northern Iowa and University of Iowa, College of Law and is an AV ® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell and has presented to a variety of trade groups including technology, construction, and insurance industries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

    Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case

    May 24, 2021 —
    The parties in a $238-million dispute over the construction of the third set of locks for the Panama Canal are raising issues concerning alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitrators in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.[2] The case may address rarely litigated issues concerning whether arbitrators who sit on multiple arbitration panels together or who support appointment of each other to lead arbitration panels have disabling conflicts of interest. The case pits Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. (“Grupo”), a consortium of Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and Panamanian construction firms, against Autoridad del Canal de Panama (“ACP”), the Panamanian entity that operates the Panama Canal and that sponsored the multi-billion-dollar, decade-long project to expand the Canal’s capacity by building a new set of locks (the “Project”). The current dispute (the “Panama 1 Arbitration”), which centers on the suitability of the rock coming from the excavations to be used to produce concrete aggregates for the Project, was arbitrated before a three-member ICC Tribunal and resulted in a $238-million award to ACP and against Grupo. The ICC Tribunal reversed a decision of the dispute review board established in the parties’ contract. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP and Philip Z. Langer, Fox Rothschild LLP Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com Mr. Langer may be contacted at planger@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Subsidence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Landslide

    May 23, 2022 —
    The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied coverage based upon the policy's subsidence exclusion. Atain Spec. Ins. Co. v. JKT Associates, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6351 (9th Cir. March 11, 2022). JKT was hired by Lora Eichner Blanusa in 2011 to perform landscape and hardscape work at her house. After selling the house to Richard Meese, a catastrophic landslide occurred in 2019. Portions of the rear of the property slid downhill by 15 feet. Meese sued JKG and others. The owner of an adjacent property, Kristi Synek, filed a separate action against JKT and others. JKT tendered both suits to Atain, who defended under a reservation of rights. Atain filed a coverage action in federal district court regarding both underlying suits. The district court granted summary judgment to Atain, ruling there was no duty to defend or to indemnify. 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

    New Highway for Olympics Cuts off Village near Sochi, Russia

    February 07, 2014 —
    A new highway costing $635 million was built in Sochi, Russia to support this month’s Winter Olympic Games—but the “shining” highway has cut off residents of the Village of Akhtyr, according to The Spokesman-Review. The online publication reports that while the Olympics will showcase the “luxury malls, sleek stadiums and high-speed train links, thousands of ordinary people in the Sochi area put up with squalor and environmental waste: villagers living next to an illegal dump filled with Olympic construction waste, families whose homes are sinking into the earth, city dwellers suffering chronic power cuts despite promises to improve electricity.” One of the Sochi residents told KPAX News that what was once a “15-minute walk to get the bus to work has become a two-hour, cross-country trek. Military guards block their way to the rickety footbridge they used to use.” Furthermore, KPAX News claimed, “Heavy construction and traffic have chewed up the road through town and turned it into a dust bowl.” Read the full story at The Spokesman-Review... Read the full story at KPAX News... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of