BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington multi family design expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness public projects
    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


    First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

    Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

    Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

    The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

    Purse Tycoon Aims at Ultra-Rich With $85 Million Home

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Bank Sues over Defective Windows

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    The “Right to Repair” Construction Defects in the Rocky Mountain and Plains Region

    Does a Broker Forfeit His or Her Commission for Technical Non-Compliance with Department of Real Estate Statutory Requirements?

    2021 Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On [UPDATED]

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law

    MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Effective July 1, 2022, Contractors Will be Liable for their Subcontractor’s Failure to Pay its Employees’ Wages and Benefits

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    The Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”) Applies When a Duty Arises from Statute or Common Law and is Independent from The Terms of a Specific Contract. (OR)

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    Puerto Rico Grid Restoration Plagued by Historic Problems, New Challenges

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction
    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

    Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

    March 27, 2019 —
    A proposed copper and gold mine in Alaska could impact up to 12,000 acres of wetlands as well as local fisheries but would help meet a worldwide demand for copper, according to the draft environmental impact statement on the Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
    Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

    Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

    December 20, 2012 —
    The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court, asking whether property damage can constitute an "occurrence" under a CGL policy where its effects are not felt on "other property." HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co. v. Morrison Homes, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. Ct. LEXIS 23813 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2012). The general contractor, Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., was covered by a CGL policy issued by Gerling. The policy excluded "expected or intended injury," contractual liability," and business risk exclusions. Morrison was sued by homeowners in a class action suit. Morrison had allegedly omitted four inches of gravel required beneath the base of the concrete foundations by the Uniform Building Code. Thereafter, the houses sustained water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckling flooring. Gerling defended, but sued Morrison for a declaratory judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    January 10, 2018 —
    On December 15th, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to revisit its April 7, 2017 decision in USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, No. 14-0721, a “bad faith” case arising out of Hurricane Ike damage, in which the court held that a policyholder could potentially recover policy benefits for statutory bad faith under Texas law, even though a jury concluded that the insurer did not breach the terms of the policy, if the policyholder could show that she was nevertheless entitled to the benefit. The decision to rehear this matter comes at the urging of insurers and interested groups, including the Insurance Council of Texas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who argued that the April 7, 2017 ruling substantially unsettled Texas insurance law. Menchaca is a first-party property insurance coverage case. After Hurricane Ike struck in 2008, plaintiff Menchaca submitted a claim under her homeowners policy to USAA. A USAA adjuster later concluded that Menchaca’s property suffered only “minimal damage” that fell below the deductible. Menchaca sued claiming breach of contract and unfair claims settlement practices in violation of the Texas Insurance Code. As damages, she sought only the policy benefit, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean P. Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    May 30, 2018 —
    A differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018). 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

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

    December 31, 2014 —
    Construction Defect Journal’s year-end review presents the top ten most popular topics featured in the journal in 2014. Some of the topics involved analysis of important construction defect cases, while others covered current events such as proposed state legislation. Most issues were heavily discussed on CDJ as well as in board rooms and during teleconferences. We hope you enjoy the look-back at 2014 interspersed throughout the issue, and we wish you and yours a prosperous 2015! CDJ’s #1 Topic of the Year: Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013) According to Darrin J. McMullen of Anderson Kill, “[t]he Indalex decision reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies. Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Insurance Attorney, Latosha M. Ellis, Honored by Business Insurance Magazine

    May 03, 2021 —
    We are proud to share that Business Insurance has named Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance coverage associate, Latosha M. Ellis, one of the magazine’s 2021 Break Out Award winners. Business Insurance’s Break Out Awards honor 40 top professionals from around the country each year who are expected to be the next leaders in risk management and the property/casualty insurance field. Business Insurance reviewed hundreds of nominees, all of whom have worked in commercial insurance or related sectors for under 15 years. Out of those hundreds, Latosha was selected as one of the 40 honorees for 2021. Latosha is well-deserving of this honor. She is committed to excellence in the practice of law and in her service to clients, both of which have earned her a sterling reputation in the Virginia and District of Columbia legal communities. In addition to her litigation success and excellent client service skills, Latosha is a leader, both in the firm and in the legal community. Latosha not only serves as a mentor to several young attorneys at our firm, but she is also a board member of the University of Richmond Law School Alumni Board (currently serving on a three-year term) and a planning member of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) professional development committee. She also co-chaired the 2021 ABA Insurance Coverage and Litigation Committee Annual CLE Conference, for which she implemented new diversity and inclusion standards and ensured several program sessions geared towards young lawyers. In addition, Latosha was selected as the firm’s 2019 Pathfinder for the Leadership Council for Legal Diversity, serves on the executive board of the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and was inducted into the American Bar Association’s Section of Litigation Young Lawyer Leadership Program. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SEC Proposes Rule Requiring Public Firms to Report Climate Risks

    April 11, 2022 —
    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposal March 21—both anticipated and feared—that would require publicly-traded companies to standardize disclosure for the first time of climate-related business risks such as those related to severe weather and decarbonization. Exchange-listed firms would also have to report greenhouse gas emissions, their own and in the supply chain, creating a major reporting mandate. The rules also apply to firms listed on overseas exchanges that operate in the U.S. Reprinted courtesy of 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

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    June 08, 2020 —
    There are cases where you feel for the plaintiff, but understand why they did not prevail, despite the creative efforts of their counsel. The case of Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 958 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2020) is one of these cases. In Robinson, the plaintiff moved into a home that turned out to be infested with a highly venomous spider. Efforts to eradicate the spider proved unsuccessful and the spider apparently infested the entire home. The plaintiff made a claim under their homeowner’s property insurance policy arguing that their home suffered a physical loss caused by the spider infestation as the spider presented an irreparable condition that rendered the home unsafe for occupancy. (It probably did!). The property insurer denied coverage because the policy had an insurance exclusion for loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents, or insects. The insurer claimed the spider is an insect or vermin and, therefore, there is no coverage based on the exclusion. The insured creatively argued that “scientifically speaking” a spider is an arachnid and not an insect. Neither the trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit found this argument persuasive. 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