BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington engineering 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


    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    Ahlers Distinguished As Top Super Lawyer In Washington And Nine Firm Members Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

    Insurer Fails to Establish Prejudice Due to Late Notice

    Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

    COVID-19 Vaccine Considerations for Employers in the Construction Industry

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Supreme Court of Canada Broadly Interprets Exception to Faulty Workmanship Exclusion

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Condo Board Goes after Insurer for Construction Defect Settlement

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March

    Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

    Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect

    Steven Cvitanovic to Present at NASBP Virtual Seminar

    A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    Rather Than Limit Decision to "That Particular Part" of Developer's Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Lawsuits over Roof Dropped

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

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

    Quick Note: Staying, Not Dismissing, Arbitrable Disputes Under Federal Arbitration Act

    EPA Issues New PFAS Standard, Provides $1B for Testing, Cleanup of 'Forever Chemicals'

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    ASCE Joins White House Summit on Building Climate-Resilient Communities

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Sewage Flowing in London’s River Thames Draws Green Bond Demand
    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

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    January 22, 2013 —
    Austin, Texas has torn down a school gym, the Turner-Roberts Recreation Center at the Overton Elementary School, due to structural problems which became evident after the gym was completed four years ago. The cost of the new gym is $6.4 million, more than the cost of building the gym in the first place. The city is paying $3 million in repair costs with the rest of the money coming from the companies that designed and built the now demolished gym. According to the Austin Statesman, the total cost to the city will be about $8.6 million. The Turner-Roberts Recreation Center cost $5.6 million to build, but soon after it opened, structural problems were discovered. Cracks formed in walls and glass doors buckled. The settlement with the designer, contractor, and engineering firm did not require the firms to admit fault as they paid $3.4 million to fix the situation. The Statesman was unable to get a breakdown of how much each firm paid. Tom Cornelius, president of the GSC, the architectural firm on the project told the Statesman that "the foundation issues were not caused by design defects." Initially, the city sought to repair the gym, but early excavation determined that the defects were too extensive. In addition to the structural flaws, it was also determined that the HVAC system was faulty. Excavation also damaged plumbing work. Tearing down the gym turned out to be the most cost-effective response. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration

    December 21, 2020 —
    This is a brief review of the recently released “Climate 21 Project” policy memo. It is the work of many former members of the Obama Administration who are deeply concerned about climate change and what steps the new administration can take in the first 100 days to confront a problem. Offering “actionable advice” rather than a policy agenda, the group recognizes that Congress must do its part by providing new statutory authorities within the early days of the new administration, and the President must be prepared to aggressively exercise the powers of his office. As the members of the Group see it, there are four interlocking crises facing the President: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) the economic devastation visited upon many people by the pandemic; (c) racial injustice; and (d) accelerating threats posed by climate change. Accordingly: 1. The Executive Office of the President must take stronger steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through domestic investment, rulemakings, policy changes, and international diplomacy. A new Special Assistant for Climate Change must be created to take charge of these climate change initiatives. There should also be established in the Executive Office of the President a National Climate Change Council. All agencies must be advised of the urgency of this problem. The paper seems to envision a substantial growth in the White Hose staff. 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

    Renters ‘Sold Out’ by NYC Pensions Press Mayor on Housing

    May 19, 2014 —
    Elevators break down, ceilings leak and security is lax at the Metro North apartments overlooking the East River in Harlem, says retired rehabilitation technician Bob Montesi, who’s lived there for more than three decades. Even as deterioration accelerates at the 761-unit complex, which used to be in a state affordable-housing program, some tenants are facing rent increases of as much as 80 percent. For Montesi, 74, who worked at a New York City-run hospital for 41 years, the changes are especially galling. One of the owners of the building is his pension fund. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Martin Z. Braun, Bloomberg
    Mr. Braun may be contacted at mbraun6@bloomberg.net

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    April 13, 2017 —
    I’ve yet to find reading through an insurance policy on anyone’s “bucket list.” But read them you should. Or have your attorney read through them (wink, wink). Because when you need to tender a claim there’s probably no more important document in the world. In Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Financial Pacific Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. C078665 (November 29, 2016), a client whose attorney did read the policy, bested the insurer of a policy it issued. Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. In 2006 or 2007, Tidwell Enterprises, Inc. installed a fireplace at a single-family home located in Copperopolis, California. At the time, Tidwell had a general commercial liability policy issued by Financial Pacific Insurance Company, Inc. which expired in March 2010. 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

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

    Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

    The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

    Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

    In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

    The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

    The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

    The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product

    April 28, 2014 —
    Applying Minnesota law, the federal district court determined the supplier of contaminated dried milk had coverage. The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main Street Ingredients, LLC, 2014 WL 1012793 (8th Cir. March 18, 2014). In 2007, Plainview Milk Products sold dried milk to Main Street Ingredients, LLC, who then sold the dried milk to Malt-O-Meal. The dried milk was used by Malt-O-Meal in its instant oatmeal products. In June 2009, the FDA found Salmonella bacteria at Plainview's plant. The FDA also observed thirteen instances of insanitary conditions in the plant. Plainview issued a product recall notice announcing a "voluntary recall" of dried milk, stating its dried milk had "the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella." 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

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    November 17, 2016 —
    In the latest development in a federal small disadvantaged-business case, a construction company executive has pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to commit wire fraud. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    An Uncharted Frontier: Nevada First State to Prohibit Defense-Within-Limits Provisions

    July 10, 2023 —
    Nevada recently became the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what’s called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. These provisions are commonly included in errors and omissions (E&O), directors and officers (D&O) and other management liability policies. This is in contrast to other policies, most commonly commercial general liability policies, which provide defense “outside of limits” where defense costs do not reduce the policy’s limit. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrew S. Koelz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Koelz may be contacted at akoelz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of