BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing construction 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


    FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction

    Anchoring Abuse: Evolution & Eradication

    Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions

    Critical Updates in Builders Risk Claim Recovery: Staying Ahead of the "Satisfactory State" Argument and Getting the Most Out of LEG 3

    Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

    Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued

    Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

    Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    New WOTUS Rule

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    Nomos LLP Partners Recognized in Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    Boston Contractor Faces More OSHA Penalties

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

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

    Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    43% of U.S. Homes in High Natural Disaster Risk Areas

    Time to Update Your Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Forms (July 1, 2019)

    A Matter Judged: Subrogating Insurers Should Beware of Prior Suits Involving the Insured

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act

    Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk

    The Woodland Hills Office Secures a Total Defense Award on Behalf of their High-End Custom Home Builder Client!

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Illinois Supreme Court Announces Time Standards for Closing Out Cases

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

    Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform
    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

    Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Kansas Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that a homeowner’s suit against a plumber was barred under the economic loss doctrine. However, subsequently the Kansas Supreme Court “refused to extend the economic loss doctrine to homeowner claims against construction contractors.” In light of this, the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court. The case, Coker v. Siler, was brought by Gregory Coker, who had bought a home from J.M.C. Construction. JMC purchased an unfinished house from Michael D. Siler in August 2006. As part of the completion process, John M. Chaney, the president of JMC, installed the water line into the residence. Mr. Coker bought the home in September 2007. Starting in April 2008, Mr. Coker noticed that his water bills had increased. Mr. Coker could find “no evidence of a leak above the ground,” so he contacted JMC Construction. Mr. Chaney had R.D. Johnson Excavation dig up the water line, after which a gap was discovered that had been allowing water to flow under the foundation. In addition to the higher water bills, an engineer determined that the water “resulted in cracks in the wall and uneven doors.” Mr. Coker sued, Siler, J.M.C. and Chaney for negligence, breach of implied warranty, strict liability, and breach of express warranty. J.M.C. and Chaney requested a summary judgment. The court dismissed Mr. Coker’s claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty on the basis of the economic loss doctrine, rejecting a petition from Mr. Coker to reconsider. The court, however, allowed Mr. Cocker to proceed with his claim of express warranty. In December, 2011, Mr. Coker accepted an offer from J.M.C. of $40,000. Mr. Coker then appealed the summary judgment, making the claim that while the court’s decision was based on Prendiville v. Contemporary Homes, Inc., this has now been overruled by David v. Hett. In this case, “the court ultimately found the rationale supporting the economic loss doctrine failed to justify a departure from a long time of cases in Kansas that establish a homeowner’s right to assert claims against residential contractors.” The appeals court concluded that “although the district court properly relied on the law as it existed at the time of its ruling, the intervening change in the law necessarily renders the conclusion reached by the district court erroneous as a matter of law.” In sending this case back to the district court, the appeals court noted that the lower court will need to determine if the “defendant accused of negligence did not have a duty to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff,” in which case “summary judgment is proper. Mr. Coker claims that Mr. Chaney did indeed have this duty. Further, Mr. Coker claimed that Mr. Chaney had a duty arising out of implied warranty. The appeals court questioned whether the district court properly applied the economic loss doctrine to this claim, because despite being president of the construction company, Mr. Chaney “in his individual capacity as a plumber performing work for Coker, was not a party to the J.M.C. contract.” The court found that “Coker’s claim that Chaney breached an implied duty within such a contract fails as a matter of law.” However, the court did uphold Cocker’s claim of a contractor liability for injury to a third party, noting that “Chaney owed Coker a legal duty independent of Coker’s contact with J.M.C.” The appeals court left it to the district court to determine if the defect that caused the damage was present when the house left J.M.C.’s possession. The case was reversed and remanded “with directions to reinstate Coker’s claim of negligence against Chaney in his individual capacity as a plumber.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

    January 02, 2019 —
    In a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    March 30, 2016 —
    Time is money. And nowhere can than be best observed than on a construction project. Project delays can mean lost profits for owners, liquidated damages for general contractors, and increased material, labor, field overhead, and home office overhead costs for general contractors and subcontractors alike. Pricing the impact of delays, however, can be thorny. Particularly, for home office overhead. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

    January 07, 2015 —
    Contracts to purchase previously owned homes rose in November as employment gains and low borrowing costs helped bring potential buyers into the market. The pending home sales index advanced 0.8 percent after a revised 1.2 percent decrease in October, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median projection in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for the index to rise 0.5 percent, with estimates ranging from a decline of 1.5 percent to an advance of 3.5 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
    Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

    Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms

    October 11, 2021 —
    Lewis Brisbois has ranked 11th in Law360’s 2021 Glass Ceiling report, moving up from 37th place in 2020. The report measures female presence and gender parity in law firms, this year evaluating 269 organizations. As described in the Law360 Pulse article titled "Glass Ceiling Report: How Does Your Firm Stack Up?," the publication redesigned its report this year to evaluate female attorneys’ industry standing from a new angle by showing how the percentage of women across three levels within law firms compared with the potential marketplace of hires. This evaluation resulted in the firms’ "pipeline scores," which measure a firm’s percentage points above or below a set of benchmarks assembled with data from the American Bar Association and previous Law360 submissions. Lewis Brisbois’ Los Angeles Co-Managing Partner Jana Lubert and Chief Strategy Officer Janet Eskow, the co-chairs of Lewis Brisbois' Women's Initiative, each expressed excitement about the report, along with resolve to further promote gender diversity. "We are proud that Lewis Brisbois has moved up in these rankings because we have focused diligently on hiring and retaining the best legal talent from a diverse pool of candidates nationwide," Ms. Lubert said. "At the same time, we recognize that there is more to be done to further improve gender equity and inclusion. We remain committed to this important goal, both as it pertains to Lewis Brisbois and to the entire legal industry," she added. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    November 07, 2012 —
    The Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant

    June 05, 2023 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner Steve Straus represented a refrigeration installation and service company in a subrogation action filed by a property insurer after paying a claim related to extensive water damage at premises on Long Island, New York. The premises owner purchased a refrigerator, which was sold without a hose to connect to the water source inside the premises. The defendant retailer retained Traub Lieberman’s client to install the refrigerator. Rather than complete the installation using a new water line, the installer used the existing line from the refrigerator that was being replaced. Approximately one week after installation, the owner’s son discovered water on the floor near the refrigerator, and significant water damage in the basement of the residence. The owner filed a claim with the insurer, which sent an investigator to the premises. The retailer also sent a technician to investigate and replace the water supply line. It was reportedly determined that the original line had failed, causing the water release. After the repair, the owner’s son took possession of the old water line, which he kept for a couple of years and then discarded. The insurer initiated a subrogation action against the retailer and the installation company, alleging that the water release was caused by the defendants’ failure to replace the water line when the new unit was installed. Plaintiff claimed that photographs of the old line established that it had been damaged or defective. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephen D. Straus, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Straus may be contacted at sstraus@tlsslaw.com

    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    May 24, 2018 —
    We have written quite a bit about the mounting threat to employers, both nationally and locally, of claims of misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. New Jersey’s new Gov. Phil Murphy signed an executive order last week that establishes a task force on employee misclassification to punish contractors who commit fraud by classifying their employees as independent contractors. In the words of Governor Murphy: “I am signing this order to crack down on unscrupulous contractors who commit 1099 fraud to exploit workers and rob them of family and medical leave and safe workplace protections that the law provides,” Murphy said. “The employer gives themselves an unfair business advantage and this practice is illegal. This is a question of enforcing what is already on the books.” He has vowed that any employer caught misclassifying workers will either be brought into compliance or put out of business. The task force will foster compliance with the law and conduct a comprehensive review of existing practices. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O'Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph M. Vento, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Vento may be contacted at jvento@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of