BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington multi family design expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestrationSeattle 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


    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    RDU Terminal 1: Going Green

    Attorney-Client Privilege in the Age of Cyber Breaches

    San Francisco Law Firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Hired New Partner

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States

    Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss

    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

    Toll Brothers Snags Home Builder of the Year Honors at HLS

    With Wildfires at a Peak, “Firetech” Is Joining Smart City Lineups

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

    Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser

    NAHB Speaks Out Against the Clean Water Act Expansion

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

    Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords

    Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

    Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 04/20/22

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (02/08/23) – The Build America, Buy America Act, ESG Feasibility, and University Partnerships

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    Don’t Put Yourself In The Position Of Defending Against An Accord And Satisfaction Defense

    Project Labor Agreements Will Now Be Required for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Administration Launches 'Buy Clean' Construction Materials Push

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    Home Sales Topping $100 Million Smash U.S. Price Records

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Building 47 Bridges in Two Years

    OSHA Announces Expansion of “Severe Violator Enforcement Program”

    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)
    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

    Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

    November 24, 2019 —
    An exculpatory clause in a contract is a clause aimed at relieving another party from certain liability. A disclaimer and insulation from liability. Obviously, if you are the party relieving the other party from liability, you want to consider this risk including the potential enforceability of this risk if something goes wrong. If you are the party asking for the insulation from liability, you do not want to create an exculpatory provision that disclaims and insulates you of all liability arising from the contract as it may create an illusory effect – that the agreement is nothing but a naked promise on your end because your promise is fully disclaimed and you are insulated from liability if you break your promise. This could result in an unenforceable contract. The validity of such an exculpatory clause was at-issue in Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp., 2019 WL 3024618 (11thCir. 2019). Although not a construction dispute, the exculpatory clause in this case was with two fairly sophisticated parties and expressly insulated one of the contracting parties from “any…damages regardless of kind or type…whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise.” Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7. This is a powerful exculpatory clause because it could be broadly construed to insulate that party from its own breaches of the contract. In Florida:
    [A]n exculpatory clause is enforceable so long as (1) the contracting parties have equal bargaining power and (2) the clause’s provisions are clear and unambiguous. With respect to the latter requirement, ‘the intention to be relieved from liability [must be] made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away.” In the same vein, exculpatory clauses are ‘strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability.’ Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted).
    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

    COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

    March 30, 2020 —
    Every passing day brings stark new reports of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and increasing numbers of cancelled conventions, concerts, and other major events. Both the hospitality and travel industry on the one hand, and organizations that are canceling events on the other, are scrambling to understand the legal consequences of these costly terminations. Cancellation fees can be breathtaking, and affected parties are quickly learning that there are no simple answers as to whether a disease outbreak of this scope and scale falls within force majeure (or Act of God) clauses that either do not explicitly list, or arguably may never have contemplated, circumstances of this type. Generally, force majeure clauses excuse parties’ performance under a contract when circumstances that are beyond their control arise and prevent them from fulfilling their obligations. The party electing to enforce its rights under the force majeure clause must show that the triggering event qualifies as a force majeure event, and that the event has rendered the party’s performance impossible or impracticable. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Michael G. Platner, Solomon B. Zoberman and Jane C. Luxton Mr. Platner may be contacted at Michael.Platner@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Zoberman may be contacted at Solomon.Zoberman@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    March 14, 2011 —

    Despite foundation challenges, construction is almost complete on the expansion at University of North Carolina’s Kenan stadium. The project started with a deep foundation system from design-build contractor GeoStructures. Known as the Carolina Student-Athlete Center for Excellence, the addition was built on a parcel with a knotty mix of fill soils, subsurface boulders and varying depths to rock. To achieve uniform foundation support, GeoStructures designed a Micropile system (also known as a Mini pile system) which could be drilled into the variable ground conditions.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl law.com.

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

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    June 03, 2019 —
    In reversing summary judgment for defendants, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637. Typically, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases. But in Ryan, the court of appeal held that the “common knowledge” exception applied despite this general rule, because the conduct required by the particular circumstance of the case was within the common knowledge of a layman. The conduct in question here? The broker’s failure to disclose to his client that the client’s neighbor told him that she planned extensive renovations that would obstruct the client’s property’s ocean views. Ryan and Patricia Ryan (the Ryans) hired defendant Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty (Sotheby’s) and defendant real estate broker to sell their residence in La Jolla, California. During an open house at the residence, a neighbor informed the Ryan’s real estate broker that she planned extensive renovations at her home that would, among other things, permanently obstruct the Ryan’s westerly ocean views and take several years to complete. The real estate broker never informed the Ryans of this, nor the subsequent buyer. The subsequent buyer purchased the property for $3.86 million, and defendants received $96,500 as commission for the sale. The day after escrow closed, the buyers learned of the renovations, and sought to rescind the purchase. Based on advice of defendants, the Ryans refused, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The buyer obtained a rescission of the purchase, with the Ryans order to pay damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $1 million. The Ryans then sued Sotheby’s and the real estate broker to recover these amounts and damages caused by defendants’ alleged negligence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    June 14, 2021 —
    This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BP PLC, et al. v Mayor and City of Baltimore The issue the court confronted was a procedural matter: Can the defendant energy companies use the federal removal statutes (see 28 USC Section 1442) to remove a state law climate change lawsuit to federal court? Here, a group of energy companies were sued by the mayor and city council of Baltimore in state court, where they alleged that the defendants had concealed the adverse environmental effects of the fossil fuel products they promoted and sold in Baltimore City. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in many state courts, where typically it is alleged that the defendants can be sued on various common law theories. Rather than defend these cases in state court, the defendants have sought to remove these cases to federal court because climate change liability appears to be an issue that should be settled at the federal level. These efforts have been unsuccessful, with most federal trial and appellate courts holding that the reasons cited for removal (oftentimes the federal officer removal statute) have not been persuasive. In this case, both the Maryland federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals held they had no jurisdiction to authorize removal, and thus returned the case to the state court. Noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a removal action could be countenanced under Section 1442, thus creating a circuit split, the Supreme Court held that a straightforward reading of the removal statute empowers the reviewing court to examine all theories for removal that a district court has rejected. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit where it can decide, “in the first instance,” whether there actually exist grounds to remove this case to federal court. 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

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    April 28, 2014 —
    In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    December 23, 2024 —
    Despite recent challenges, including obvious political tensions, economic cooling in the PRC, and increased local competition, the Chinese market remains an attractive destination for U.S. design and architecture firms. For instance, PEI Architects has maintained its success in China through long-standing relationships with key clients and is currently involved in two major projects for the Bank of China: a 1.9 million-square-foot complex in Shanghai and a financial center in Haikou.[i] Similarly, NBBJ is playing a critical role in the development of Tencent’s Net City in Shenzhen, a 2-million-square-meter smart city project that aligns with China's goals of sustainable and tech-driven urbanization.[ii] These examples show that while the Chinese market presents challenges, it continues to offer significant opportunities, particularly in sectors where innovative and cutting-edge architectural solutions are in high demand. At the same time, U.S. firms should exercise care: proper advance planning and strategic alliances are crucial for profitable forays into the Chinese market. JR Design Project: A Cautionary Tale When operating in China, U.S. design firms often encounter regulatory challenges, particularly with respect to China’s strict qualification requirements for architectural design services. Failure to meet these requirements can result in serious legal issues, including the potential invalidation of design contracts, as demonstrated in a leading case decided by the Supreme People’s Court of PRC (the nation’s highest court). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chengdong ("C.D.") Xing, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
    Mr. Xing may be contacted at chengdong.xing@rajahtann.com

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    October 29, 2014 —
    SI Live reported that “[t]he federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has opened a probe into an early-morning truck accident at the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge that left a construction worker dead Wednesday.” The accident occurred in New York “when a truck laying asphalt backed into [the worker] and crushed him.” Ted Fitzgerald, OSHA spokesman, stated, “OSHA did respond and has opened an inspection to determine whether or not there were violations of workplace safety standards in connection with this fatality,” as quoted by SI Live. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of