BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington consulting engineersSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestrationSeattle Washington stucco expert witnessSeattle Washington structural concrete expert
    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


    The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

    BofA Said to Near Mortgage Deal for Up to $17 Billion

    You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

    Alaska Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner

    Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

    Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar

    Owner’s Slander of Title Claim Against Contractor Recording Four Separate Mechanics Liens Fails Under the Anti-SLAPP Statute

    The ABCs of PFAS: What You Need to Know About Liabilities for the “Forever Chemical”

    Haight Welcomes New Attorneys to Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects

    Meet D1's Neutrals Series: KENNETH FLOREY

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Jersey Shore Town Trying Not to Lose the Man vs. Nature Fight on its Eroded Beaches

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

    Wilke Fleury ranked in Best Lawyers’ Best Law Firms!!

    OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/11/23) – Construction Tech, Housing Market Confidence, and Decarbonization

    Best U.S. Home Sales Since 2007 Show Momentum in Housing Market

    When Is an Arbitration Clause Unconscionable? Not Often

    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

    Unlocking the Hidden Power of Zoning, for Good or Bad

    One Shot to Get It Right: Navigating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

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

    Wearable Ways to Work in Extreme Heat

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Summary Judgment for Insurer Reversed Based on Expert Opinion

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

    Bridges Need More Attention

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas
    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

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    November 08, 2017 —
    Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Brock Long wants to revamp the way federal disaster funds are distributed, putting a greater emphasis on building more-resilient structures and communities before disasters strike, Long told a House panel reviewing federal response to the recent slate of disasters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
    Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    April 01, 2015 —
    The Department of Labor announced late last year that it had recovered nearly $2 million in back wages and fringe benefits from a subcontractor that provided constructions services at the federally funded Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in the Nevada desert. This was not a failure to pay Davis Bacon wages, but a failure to properly classify laborers on the project. The DOL determined that the laborers should have been paid as skilled trade steelworkers, not general laborers. As the subcontractor found out, this proved very costly. The subcontractor submitted its bid, classifying its laborers as general laborers and designating their wage at $30.00. The laborers were to assemble billboard sized mirrors on the project. There is some indication that the Department of Energy agreed with the classification, even though the Department of Labor has the final say on classifications. The Department of Labor’s investigation revealed that the laborers routinely performed duties in skilled trades, such as ironworking, electrical work, painting or bridge crane operation. Based on these activities, the Department of Labor concluded that the laborers should have been paid $60.00 per hour plus fringe benefits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    July 23, 2014 —
    The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently issued an opinion in Greenstein v. Council of Unit Owners of Avalon Court Six Condominium Inc. finding that an association can be sued by its unit owner members if it fails to take timely legal action against a developer. In that case, the association was aware of construction defects, but failed to take action to preserve its claim and then filed a lawsuit against the developer too late, after the statute of limitations expired. As a result, the suit against the developer was dismissed and the association was forced to assess its unit owner members for the $1 million in repair costs. Some of the unit owners then sued their association, seeking to recover the cost of their assessments on the ground that the association was negligent in failing to pursue a timely legal action against the developer. On appeal, the court was asked to decide whether state law permits owners to sue their condominium association for negligently failing to sue a developer for common element construction defects. The court, in an unpublished opinion, found that an association could be held liable to its members. The court said: “The duty to maintain, repair and replace the common elements together with the exclusive right to initiate litigation regarding the common elements [which was stated in a provision of the association’s bylaws] creates a concomitant obligation on the part of the [association] to pursue recovery from [the developer] on behalf of [the unit owners] for damage to the common elements caused by [the developer’s] negligence, breach of contract or violation of any applicable law.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
    Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

    Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

    February 07, 2014 —
    In Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., - F.3d -, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 774, 2014 WL 129884 (9th Cir., Jan. 15, 2014) en banc, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a $10.2 million judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor in a case where Plaintiff alleged that occupational exposure to asbestos from dryer felts caused his mesothelioma. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by neglecting its duty as a “gatekeeper” under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, by improperly admitting expert testimony at trial without first determining its reliability. The en banc court held that admitting the testimony on the debated theory that “each asbestos fiber causes mesothelioma” was prejudicial error and the court remanded the case for a new trial. The court also held that a reviewing court has the authority to make Daubert findings based on the record established by the district court, but in the instant case, the record was “too sparse” to determine whether the expert testimony was relevant and reliable or not. This ruling is a victory for the defense in that it reaffirms the federal court’s exclusive gatekeeper role and holds that the role may not be ignored or shifted to a jury. Unfortunately, the court did not go so far as to evaluate the inherent reliability of expert opinions based on the theory that “each asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma.” As such, it did not provide guidance as to what specific foundational requirements are required to admit, or exclude, these types of opinions under a Daubert analysis. In Barabin, Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos while working at a paper mill with dryer felts manufactured and supplied by Defendants. The issue was whether the dryer felts substantially contributed to Barabin’s development of mesothelioma, a determination that required expert testimony. Reprinted Courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Chandra L. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Lee may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com and Ms. Moore may be contacted at cmoore@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Representative Wants to Change Statute of Repose

    December 10, 2015 —
    Currently in Florida, the ten year clock for construction defect claims typically starts ticking after the final payment is made by the owner. However, WFSU reported, Representative Keith Perry wants to change it so that the completion of the construction triggers the statute of repose. This change “could favor the construction industry, by shifting the power to start the clock from home owners to builders,” WFSU claimed. Representative Dwight Dudley worries about “what would happen if a contractor felt she was finished but the property owner didn’t agree.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    November 06, 2013 —
    From the time a home is built, California starts a ten-year countdown, which Alan I. Schimmel, writing at California Lawyer, notes is not a statute of limitations, but a statute of repose. During that time, homeowners might be able file a claim over construction defects that don’t immediately become evident. After that ten-year limit, “any latent defects they discover would have to be corrected using money from their own pockets.” The readily observable defects, the patent defects, have a four-year limit. Mr. Schimmel focusses on latent defects, “which generally lurk behind walls or underground.” He also notes that “they may cause catastrophic damage before they are even detected.” If a construction defect is found, the “law requires the owner of a single-family residence to notify the builder in writing of the claimed defects.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

    February 12, 2024 —
    Language in a contract matters. The word “estimates” or “estimated” matters particularly when it comes to a date certain such as a substantial completion or completion date. Remember this. Here is an example. In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D190a (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), a trial court held that the developer did not complete the construction of five condominium units by the date in the purchase agreements. The developer appealed because “[t]he agreements contain no date certain for the completion of the units, but rather include a clause that ‘Seller estimates it will substantially complete construction of the Unit, in the manner specified in this Agreement, by December 31, 2017, subject to extensions resulting from ‘Force Majeure (the ‘Outside Date’).’” Parque Towers, supra. Another provision in the purchase agreements stated, “[w]henver this Agreement requires Seller to complete or substantially complete any item of construction, that item will be understood to be complete or substantially complete when so completed or substantially completed in Seller’s opinion. Id. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Challenging and Defending a California Public Works Stop Payment Notice: Affidavit vs. Counter-Affidavit Process

    October 21, 2019 —
    One of the most effective collection procedures available to subcontractors and suppliers to California Construction projects is the “stop payment notice” procedure found under California Civil Code sections 9350 – 9364. Under this procedure, the unpaid subcontractor or supplier may serve the stop payment notice on the public entity and the direct or “prime” contractor and cause the public entity to withhold from the direct contractor 125% of the funds identified in the stop payment notice. Thereafter, funds will not generally be released unless the parties reach a settlement agreement or the issue is decided through litigation, arbitration or mediation. There is however an alternative procedure available to direct contractors to expedite the determination of whether a stop payment notice is valid and to possibly obtain an early release of the funds withheld by the public entity. This “summary proceeding” process could result in release of funds to the direct contractor in less than 30 days. The summary proceeding can also be challenged by the unpaid subcontractor or supplier. All public works contractors, subcontractors and suppliers should be aware of the process. The process for direct contractors to release a stop payment notice and for subcontractors and suppliers to challenge the process works as follows: After a California stop payment notice has been served and the public entity has withheld funds accordingly, the direct contractor may challenge the stop payment notice by serving an “affidavit” (basically a sworn statement showing why the stop notice is not valid) on the public entity, demanding that the public entity release all funds withheld. Upon receipt of such an affidavit, the public entity will serve the subcontractor or supplier who served the stop payment notice with a copy of the affidavit, along with a “demand for release of funds”. If the stop payment notice claimant does not respond with a “counter-affidavit” by the date stated on the notice sent by the public entity (“not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days after service on the claimant of a copy of the affidavit”), then the public entity will be within its rights to release the withheld funds to the direct contractor, and the stop payment notice claimant will relinquish its stop payment notice rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com