BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington soil failure expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness public projectsSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington architect expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultant
    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


    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    A Court-Side Seat: Permit Shields, Hurricane Harvey and the Decriminalization of “Incidental Taking”

    What Lies Beneath

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building

    New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)

    Jury Convicts Ciminelli, State Official in Bid-Rig Case

    U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month

    As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    Architect, Engineer, and Design Professional Liens in California: A Different Animal than the Mechanics’ Lien

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Know and Meet Your Notice Requirements or Lose Your Payment Bond Claims

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    Competent, Substantial Evidence Carries Day in Bench Trial

    Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions Into Waterlogged Miami?

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/17/23) – A Flop in Flipping, Plastic Microbes and Psychological Hard Hats

    Don't Count On a Housing Slowdown to Improve Affordability

    Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

    Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites

    Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Title Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team

    Previously Owned U.S. Home Sales Rise to Eight-Month High

    Related’s $1 Billion Los Angeles Project Opens After 15-Year Wait

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

    Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

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

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    Replacing Coal Plants with Renewables Is Cheaper 80% of the Time

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Prison Contractors Did Not Follow the Law

    Preparing For the Worst with Smart Books & Records

    David M. McLain, Esq. to Speak at the 2014 CLM Claims College

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/17/24) – Housing Inflation to Remain High, Proptech Investment to Fall and Office Vacancy Rates to Reach Peak in 2025

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Seattle's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

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

    August 17, 2017 —
    AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

    July 01, 2019 —
    Florida contractors will soon have a level playing field, at least related to the right to recovery of attorney fees in certain circumstances. Effective October 1, 2019, the Florida statute by which legal fees may be recovered from insurers and sureties was amended to expressly afford that right to contractors. Florida’s Insurance statute, Chapter 627, affords a right to recovery of attorney fees when a judgment is obtained against an insurer and in favor of any insured pursuant to a policy or contract executed by the insurer. See Fla. Stat. § 627.428. In the construction context, the Florida Legislature has also applied this right to the recovery of attorney fees from sureties, for example in circumstances where suit is brought against a surety under a payment or performance bond. See Fla. Stat. § 627.756. But there was an oddity to this statute – it specifically provided this right for “owners” and “subcontractors”, but “contractors” were skipped over. For as long as Section 627.756, Florida Statutes has been on the books, the right to recovery of attorney fees against a surety under a payment or performance bond was only afforded to owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen. Specifically, since at least 1977, Section 627.756, Florida Statutes substantially provided as follows (emphasis added): Section 627.428 applies to suits brought by owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract. Owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Friedman may be contacted at wfriedman@pecklaw.com

    Ceiling Collapse Attributed to Construction Defect

    May 19, 2011 —

    WSMV, Nashville reports that the ceiling collapse in a Franklin, Tennessee Kohl’s was attributed to a construction defect by fire officials. The officials noted that the ceiling was renovated at the time. No injuries were reported.

    The report notes that “inspectors were supposed to look at the renovations next week, but fire officials said that will have to be delayed until another time.”

    Read the full story…

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

    Fatal Crane Collapse in Seattle Prompts Questions About Disassembly Procedures

    July 09, 2019 —
    A tower crane being dismantled collapsed Saturday, April 27 in Seattle, killing four people, including two ironworkers on the crane and two bystanders on the street below. The jobsite, located in a Google office development in Seattle's bustling South Lake Union neighborhood, is adjacent to a busy intersection where traffic had not been blocked off during the crane’s disassembly. It is the first fatal crane accident in the Puget Sound region since a crane collapse in Bellevue, Wash., in 2006 that killed one person. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
    Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

    “Genuine” Issue of “Material” Fact and Summary Judgments

    December 18, 2022 —
    This is short article on summary judgments. A motion for summary judgment, as you may already know, is a procedural vehicle to try to dispose of issues or claims in a lawsuit, either partially or fully. The objective is that the moving party claims that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to a judgment (partially or finally) as a matter of law. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510. In May of 2021, Florida adopted the federal summary judgment standard which theoretically means trial courts should grant more summary judgments, not less, based on the more rigorous standard. There have been many articles that discuss Florida’s new summary judgment standard including how the standard used to be versus how it is supposed to be now that it is modeled after the federal standard. That isn’t the point of this posting. (Here is an article published in the Florida Bar Journal that provides a primer on summary judgments in case you are interested.) The point of this posting is to understand the words “genuine” and “material” as underlined above when moving for or defending against a summary judgment. These words have important meaning in the context of motions for summary judgment. In other words, what is a genuine issue of material fact? This is a question that should not be overlooked because these are the facts you want to focus on and frame your arguments on when moving for or defending against a summary judgment. Notably, these are also the facts you want to introduce and emphasize at trial. 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

    Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

    February 16, 2017 —
    The California Court of Appeal determined there was no duty to indemnify and the insured had to reimburse the insurer's contribution to a settlement. Nevertheless, there was a duty to defend, meaning the insured did not have to reimburse amounts it was entitled to under the supplemental payments provision. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Constr., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2016). Moorefield was the general contractor for a shopping center project to be developed by DBO Development No. 28 (DBO). The project included the construction of a 30,055-square-foot building to by used as a Best Buy store. In January 2002, DBO entered a 15-year lease with Best Buy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    September 01, 2011 —

    A U.S. District Court Judge in Florida has ruled in favor of a company that sought to void a settlement agreement. The case, Water v. HDR Engineering, involved claims of construction defects at Florida’s C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The Tampa Bay Water Authority attributed these to both HDR Engineering’s design and Bernard Construction Company which had built the embankment. Bernard Construction filed a complaint against their subcontractor, McDonald.

    Tampa Bay Water settled with Bernard Construction and McDonald, in an agreement that set a minimum and maximum settlement, but also would “prohibit Barnard and McDonald from presenting any evidence on several claims and positions of TBW, to require Barnard to call certain witnesses at trial, to preclude Barnard and McDonald from calling other witnesses, and to restrict the filing of trial and post-trial motions.” HDR Engineering moved to void the agreement as collusive.

    The judge that the agreement¬? contained “133 paragraphs of ‘Agreed Facts’ that the parties stipulated would survive any order declaring the Settlement Agreement void or unenforceable.” He characterized these as stipulating “that Barnard neither caused nor contributed to TBW’s damages.” HDR motioned that a summary judgment be given to Barnard Engineering.

    The court found that “the evidence identified by TBW is patently insufficient to survive summary judgment.” Further, TBW’s expert initially held Barnard responsible for “lenses, pockets, streaks and layers within the embankment,” but then later withdrew this assigning the responsibility to HDR. Further, the court notes that, “TBW’s arguments that lenses, pockets, streaks, and layers in the soil wedge caused or contributed to its damages and that Barnard is liable for those damages have been foreclosed by the Agreed Facts.”

    As TBW failed to provide sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment, mooted the claim against McDonald, and terminated the agreement between TBW and the other parties.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    2017 California Employment Law Update

    January 13, 2017 —
    Below are some of the new laws going into effect this year that affect the construction industry. Unless otherwise noted, the laws go into effect on January 1, 2017. Public Works and Prevailing Wages You can read more about the new laws—AB 326, AB 1926 and SB 954—relating to public works and prevailing wages in an earlier blog post. Employment Contracts Choice of Forum and Choice of Law. Under SB 1241, an employer cannot require an employee who primarily works and resides in California to agree to file a lawsuit or bring a claim in another state when the claim arises in California. This is usually referred to as the choice of forum clause. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Ms. Bailey may be contacted at ebailey@wendel.com