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


    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    California Governor Signs SB 496 Amending California’s Anti-Indemnity Statute

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit

    Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

    Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Denied

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

    Improper Classification Under Davis Bacon Can Be Costly

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

    Job Gains a Positive for Housing

    Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole

    False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

    Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

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

    Legal Disputes Soar as Poor Information Management Impacts the AEC Industry

    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Best Lawyers Honors 43 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Recognizes Three Partners as 'Lawyers of The Year'

    As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

    Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Proposed Bill Provides a New Federal Tax Credit for the Conversion of Office Buildings

    Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

    Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Getting U.S to Zero Carbon Will Take a $2.5 Trillion Investment by 2030

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation

    More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    The G2G Year in Review: 2020

    New York Regulator Issues Cyber Insurance Guidelines
    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. Drawing 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

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    February 07, 2013 —
    Is this part of the spa treatment? A couple has sued over problems at Miraval Living, a luxury high-rise on the East Side of Manhattan. There was supposed to be ballroom dancing, culinary classes, and yoga. Anthony Argyrides's lawsuit notes that those didn't materialize. What they did get, he claims, was faulty plumbing, crumbling fixtures, and defective floor tiles. Mr. Argyrides claims that his front door "spontaneously fell of its hinges and nearly hit FiOS installation workers." Meanwhile, building management has ended their agreement with Miraval and need to find someone else to operate the building's spa. Argyrides and his fellow building residents might need something more than a few deep calming breaths. He's suing for $5.5 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

    February 01, 2022 —
    In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

    July 15, 2019 —
    The latest federal regulatory agenda has been released, which, among other matters, lists proposed and projected environmental regulatory proceedings being considered by different departments and agencies. Here are some selected items. EPA 1. The Water Office
    • EPA plans to issue in December 2019 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to consider making a regulatory determination as a prelude to listing as drinking water contaminants PFOA and PFOS pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    • EPA (along with the Corps of Engineers) plans to issue an NPRM in December 2019 that will propose to revise and update its 2008 mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, with a final rule scheduled for September 2020.
    • An NPRM to revise the 2015 effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category will be released in June 2019.
    • Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
      Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

      Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

      September 25, 2018 —
      Brad Pitt’s foundation has sued its architect of New Orleans projects alleging “defective design work led to leaks and other flaws in homes built for residents of an area that was among the hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina,” reported Insurance Journal. The Make It Right Foundation claims damages of more than $15 million caused by architect John C. Williams. According to Insurance Journal, “The foundation paid Williams’ firm millions of dollars to produce architectural drawings for more than 100 homes under the program, which was supposed to provide Lower 9th Ward residents with sustainable and affordable new homes.” This lawsuit against the architect is apparently in response to a class-action lawsuit by New Orleans attorney Ron Austin against Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation. Austin’s lawsuit “accused the charity of building substandard homes that are deteriorating at a rapid pace,” Insurance Journal reported. The 39 homes involved in a previous suit regarding the manufacturer of TimberSIL are excluded from the lawsuit against Williams. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

      September 04, 2018 —
      Whether an insurance bad faith claim, joined by amendment to an underlying insurance coverage action, may be removed more than a year after the original action was begun has divided federal judges in the state of Florida but has not yet been considered by the Eleventh Circuit. Now, a new opinion out of the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville Division) has added to the debate. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

      May 10, 2012 —

      The Louisiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the lower court’s judgment in the case of Richard v. Alleman. The Richards initiated this lawsuit under Louisiana’s New Home Warranty Act, claiming that they had entered into a construction contract with Mr. Alleman and that they quickly found that his materials and methods had been substandard. They sued for the cost of repairing the home and filing the lawsuit. Mr. Alleman countersued, claiming the Richards failed to pay for labor, materials, and services. By his claim, they owed him $12,838.80.

      The trial court split the issues of liability and damages. In the first trial, the court concluded that there was a contact between Alleman and the Richards and that the New Home Warranty Act applied. Mr. Alleman did not appeal this trial.

      The second trial was on the issue of damages. Under the New Home Warranty Act, the Richards were found to be entitled to $36,977.11 in damages. In a second judgment, the couple was awarded $18,355.59 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Alleman appealed both judgments.

      In his appeal, Alleman contended that the trial court erred in determining that the Home Warranty Act applied. This was, however, not the subject of the trial, having been determined at the earlier trial. Nor did the court accept Alleman’s claim that the Richards failed to comply with the Act. The trial record made clear that the Richards provided Alleman with a list of problems with their home by certified mail.

      The court did not establish whether the Richards told Alleman to never return to their home, or if Alleman said he would never return to the home, but one thing was clear: Alleman did not complete the repairs in the list.

      A further repair was added after the original list. The Richards claimed that with a loud noise, a large crack appeared in their tile flooring. Mr. Alleman stated that he was not liable for this as he was not given a chance to repair the damage, the Richards hired the flooring subcontractors, and that the trial court rejected the claim that the slab was defective. The appeals court found no problem with the award. Alleman had already “refused to make any of the repairs.”

      Finally Alleman made a claim on a retainage held by the Richards. Since Alleman did not bring forth proof at trial, the appeals court upheld the trial courts refusal to award a credit to Alleman.

      Read the court’s decision…

      Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation

      April 26, 2021 —
      Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and its chill on the hospitality industry, ADA-related digital lawsuits increased by approximately 23% in 2020. Many of these lawsuits are filed against hotels. The complaints allege that a hotel’s online reservation system failed to provide enough detail for individuals with disabilities to decide if the hotel meets their accessibility needs. These plaintiffs will often claim that it is insufficient to describe an aspect of a hotel or room as “accessible” because the term is an opinion or conclusion. Plaintiffs argue that a hotel’s reservation system must report specific information, such as the dimensions of space under accessible desks and sinks, the slopes of surfaces, doorway clearance, and numerous other technical requirements under the ADA. Many hotels are fighting back, arguing that the detail provided is sufficient and in compliance with the ADA. So far this year, in February 2021, two judges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson and Judge Cormac Carney, agreed with the defendants, dismissing three cases with prejudice. Reprinted courtesy of Shane Singh, Lewis Brisbois and Grace Mehta, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Singh may be contacted at Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Mehta may be contacted at Grace.Mehta@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Federal Court Enforces “Limits” and “Most We Will Pay” Clauses in Additional Insured Endorsement

      September 13, 2021 —
      In the recent case of Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc., 20-CV-4614 (LJL), 2021 WL 3617218 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—in deciding a motion for consideration—had occasion to review the 2013 ISO changes to the additional insured endorsement, and held that coverage under a policy providing additional insured coverage was limited to the $1,000,000 required by contract, and not the $2,500,000 limit to the policy. In Zurich, Zurich and its named insured D.A. Collins sought the full limits of the primary policy issued by XL to the D.A. Collins’ subcontractor, HBI, which are $2,5000 per occurrence and in the aggregate, for an underlying personal injury lawsuit. XL also issued an excess policy in the amount of $5,000,000 to HBI. The contract between D.A. Collins and HBI required HBI to obtain commercial liability coverage “in an amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. It further provides that the “required limits for the umbrella excess coverage shall be sufficient to provide a total of $5,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate.” Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
      Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com