BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington consulting architect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington forensic architect
    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


    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    A Trivial Case

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

    The Law Clinic Paves Way to the Digitalization of Built Environment Processes

    Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

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

    Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project

    Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Zillow Topping Realogy Shows Web Surge for Housing Market

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    Update: Where Did That Punch List Term Come From Anyway?

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

    Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

    Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

    The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

    U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage

    Gatluak Ramdiet Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

    A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    Lumber Liquidators’ Home-Testing Methods Get EPA Scrutiny

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    Five Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2021

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2021 “Atlanta 500” List

    BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Women in Construction Aren’t Silent Anymore. They Are Using TikTok to Battle Discrimination
    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. Leveraging 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

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    September 10, 2014 —
    In Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract. In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    July 01, 2019 —
    Can an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work? Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long. The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230. The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hurricane Warning: Florida and Southeastern US Companies – It is Time to Activate Your Hurricane Preparedness Plan and Review Key Insurance Deadlines

    November 01, 2022 —
    Hurricane Ian is rapidly approaching the west coast of Florida and is expected to make landfall as a Category 4 hurricane near the Tampa area within the coming days. While the exact track is still being determined, there is a chance the storm may also impact insureds in Georgia and South Carolina. Now is the time to activate your disaster plan and ensure that you have your relevant insurance policies in your possession and that you review them for critical deadlines. We put together an alert here with tips to help you and your business mitigate potential storm loss and maximize coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Cary D. Steklof, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Digital Twins for a Safer Built Environment

    November 24, 2019 —
    As a native of Turin Italy, I was horrified at the Ponte Morandi bridge collapse last year. As a child and as an adult I have travelled over that bridge more times than I can imagine and have often pondered the what-if scenarios. What if it had happened when I or my loved ones were travelling on that bridge? As a chartered construction professional, I ask myself, what could have been done, what should have been done and what can we do to prevent this from happening in the future? Having access to a digital twin with an integrated understanding of the way the bridge was designed, built and performed over the last 50 years and being able to run “what if” scenarios would have allowed us to have a much greater understanding of the structure and its limitations in its context. This is where I believe a digital twin of any built asset is a step in the right direction. The digital twin has been proclaimed by many as a milestone innovation in the construction industry, with huge benefits to constructors and owners of assets through efficiencies in manufacturing and operation but also to attracting users of the spaces they replicate. However, digital replicas can take a broad range of forms depending on its purpose, use and application sparking debates among professionals on what they actually are and what represents a ‘true’ twin. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cristina Savian, AEC Business

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    September 24, 2014 —
    Homeownership climbed in a small number of U.S. metropolitan areas last year including San Francisco; Nashville, Tennessee; and Austin, Texas, where strong job growth helped them buck the national trend. Of 100 metropolitan areas, 17 had an increase in the “true” ownership rate, which measures the number of owner-occupied households per 100 adult residents, according to an analysis by Trulia Inc. of Census Bureau data. Even in those areas, advances were small. San Francisco had the biggest gain in 2013, rising about 0.6 percentage points from a year earlier, the property-information company said today. The Gary, Indiana, region, made up mostly of suburbs, had a similar increase. The homeownership rate has been falling in much of the U.S. as incomes stagnate and rising prices make housing less affordable and more difficult to finance for entry-level buyers. The regions where the rate is up include strong job markets such as San Francisco and Austin, and areas with stable prices such as Albany, New York, that were spared the brunt of the nationwide foreclosure crisis, Trulia said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
    Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    May 10, 2012 —

    I love writing this column, because I think it’s refreshing for contractors to hear that they don’t always need an attorney. Today’s post is the “Un-Save a Legal Fee” because I want to point out a specific illustration of when you definitely need your attorney. Using a construction contract template can be fine, but you always need to consider its application to each project ? or it could bite you in the rear.

    Seattle attorney Paul Cressman published a prime depiction of bad contract management, last week. A Florida appellate court struck down a general contractor’s “pay if paid” clause when it became ambiguous because of some incorporated language from its prime contract. Specifically, a clause in the prime contract required the general contractor to pay all subcontractors before receiving payment from the owner, while the general contractor’s “pay if paid” clause required its subcontractors to wait for payment until it arrived from the owner.

    Read the full story…

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

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/16/24) – Algorithms Affect the Rental Market, Robots Aim to Lower Construction Costs, and Gen Z Struggle to Find Their Own Space

    February 12, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, New York’s Prompt Payment Act comes into question, vacancy rates rise in commercial office space, the Biden administration applies project labor agreements on certain federal construction projects, and more! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    January 07, 2015 —
    The common interest privilege is a doctrine that operates to maintain the confidentiality of communications between parties and counsel that have aligned interests. It is designed to encourage the free flow of information between these parties, and has historically been utilized primarily in the context of litigation. However, in Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department recently expanded the common interest privilege by holding that it is applicable in transactional contexts. 2014 WL 6803006, No. 651612/10 (1st Dep’t 2014). The Ambac court defined the common interest doctrine as “a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege” when a third party is present during a communication between an attorney and his or her client. The doctrine shields such communications from disclosure when they are (1) protected by the attorney client privilege and (2) “made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties.” Until Ambac, New York courts touched on, but never squarely addressed, whether a third requirement must be satisfied before the common interest doctrine can be invoked: “that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.” The Ambac court addressed and rejected this purported third requirement while reversing the decision of the trial court which found that defendant Bank of America failed “to cite any New York case that applied the common-interest doctrine outside of either joint-representation of two parties by one attorney, or where parties reasonably anticipated litigation.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Jay Shapiro, Lori S. Smith and Brittney Edwards Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Edwards may be contacted at edwardsb@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of