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


    Word of the Day: “Contractor”

    Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

    Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

    CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane . . . No, It’s a Drone. Long Awaited FAA Drone Regulations Finally Take Flight

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

    It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

    GRSM Named Among 2025 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    Is Your Website Accessible And Are You Liable If It Isn't?

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    The Risks and Rewards of Sustainable Building Design

    World’s Biggest Crane Gets to Work at British Nuclear Plant

    Construction Contractors Must Understand Retainage In 2021

    Firm Claims Construction Defects in Hawaiian Homes

    Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Newmeyer Dillion Partner Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Named One of Orange County's 500 Most Influential by Orange County Business Journal

    Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

    Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

    New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2020

    Congratulations to Associate Madeline Arcellana on Her Selection as a Top Rank Attorney in Southern Nevada!

    The 2021 Top 50 Construction Law Firms™

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

    Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results
    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

    Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

    May 01, 2019 —
    The Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j. Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs. Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

    November 17, 2016 —
    The construction project is late. Very late. The owner is upset and notifies the contractor that it is assessing liquidated damages. The contractor, in turn, claims that the project is late because of excusable, compensable delays and, perhaps, excusable, noncompensable delays. This is a common and unfortunate story between an owner and contractor on any late construction project. Now the fun begins regarding the allocation of the delay! Through previous articles, I discussed that in this scenario the burden really falls on the contractor to establish that the liquidated damages were improperly assessed against it and, thus, it is entitled to additional time and/or extended general conditions as a result of excusable delays. Naturally, this requires the contractor to develop a critical path analysis (time impact analysis) allocating the impacts / delays (and the reasons for the impacts/ delays) to the project completion date. The reason the burden really falls on the contractor is because the owner’s burden is relatively easy – the project was not complete on time pursuant to the contract and any approved changed orders. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

    October 02, 2015 —
    This past month, the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, in James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (August 27, 2015), handed down a decision in a construction contract battle that has raged since 2007. And, once again, the winner is . . . in the words of Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch who authored the opinion . . . . “no prevailing party in [the] case” and hence “no prevailing party attorney’s fees [ ] awarded.” Background In Harris, subcontractor James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) sued general contractor West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) for extra work performed on a school construction project in Stockton, California. Among its claims, Harris asserted that West Bay was liable under California’s prompt payment statutes for failure to timely pay Harris. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    August 15, 2018 —
    In Muncie v. Wiesemann, 2018 K.Y. LEXIS 257, the Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether stigma damages[1] in a property casualty case are recoverable in addition to the costs incurred to remediate the actual damage. The court held that stigma damages are recoverable in addition to repair costs, but the total of the stigma damages and repair costs cannot exceed the diminution in the fair market value of the property. The court’s decision establishes that if the repair costs are insufficient to make the plaintiff whole, a recovery for stigma damages up to the amount of the diminution in the market value of the home is appropriate. Appellants Cindy and Jim Muncie incurred significant property damage to their home as a result of an oil leak originating from a neighboring property owned by the Estate of Martha Magel. In 2011, Auto Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owners), the liability carrier for the Estate’s testatrix, Patricia Weisman, filed an impleader complaint in federal court to discharge its obligation to settle the third-party liability claims on behalf of Ms. Weisman. Auto Owners reached a settlement with the Muncies for $60,000 which represented the remediation costs for the actual damage to the property. The settlement release reserved the Muncies’ right to pursue a claim for stigma damages associated with the oil leak. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

    January 23, 2023 —
    The Arizona Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the scope of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (the “implied warranty”) in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors that provides clear guidance of the law in this area, specifically on the issue of whether the implied warranty can be waived or disclaimed. It is also an interesting and helpful read for those who engage in new home residential sales and real estate transactions generally. The case: Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022). The takeaway holding: the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability cannot, under any circumstances, be disclaimed or waived. From a practice perspective, the foregoing is likely all one needs to ultimately know. However, the majority opinion (authored by Justice Timmer) and the dissent (authored by Justice King, and joined by Justice Bolick) are in these authors’ opinions worth a read for those who want a better understanding of the contours of how “public policy” plays into the analysis of the enforceability of contract terms, especially in the real estate context and even more particularly in connection with contracts for the sale of new homes. The careful analysis of both the majority opinion and the dissent provides an excellent history of the implied warranty, the public policy behind it, and its scope and application in the context of competing public policies, most notably the freedom to contract. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. Henry, Snell & Wilmer and Emily R. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com Ms. Parker may be contacted at eparker@swlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    October 10, 2013 —
    Although Virginia isn't in the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, some Virginia homeowners ended up with a case there. And now the court has to decide whether Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. can be sued in American courts for defects in its products. The case made its way to Louisiana after the courts consolidated cases from across the country. If the court decides that the homeowners can’t sue, they could appeal to the Supreme Court, although that’s likely a longshot. Or, the homeowners could sue in the Chinese courts, also not likely. More than 300 homes in Virginia are affected by fumes from the Chinese-made drywall, but only seven residents in the town of Hampton Roads are at the heart of the current case. They were chosen as representative of the entire group. Those seven have been collectively awarded $2.6 million, but the drywall manufacturer is appealing the judgement. If Taishan is victorious, then the damages already awarded will be overturned and there won’t be an option for the others. The drywall emitted gases which corroded metals in the homes. One couple, Steve and Liz Heischober went through seven air conditioning coils in three years, along with problems with corrosion of appliances and electrical systems. If the current suit succeeds, the Heischobers, and the other, will be compensated for their damages, including the costs of repair and relocation. If Taishan loses, they could be responsible for about $1 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    June 05, 2017 —
    According to Daniel E. Evans of Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, Colorado’s state legislature recently passed a bill “designed to reduce litigation risk associated with building condos by requiring a majority of actual condo unit owners, as opposed to a majority of the HOA board members, to approve the filing of a lawsuit over construction defects.” Evans stated that this “legislation cannot be viewed as sweeping reform” and that “future legislative sessions will undoubtedly see additional efforts to reform construction defect litigation.” Perhaps the most significant aspect of HB 1279 is the requirement for a majority of condo owners in a development to approve a lawsuit, Evans reported. Furthermore, HB 1279 “requires the HOA board to notify all condo unit owners and builders about plans to pursue a construction lawsuit. It further requires the HOA board to hold a meeting to allow the board and the developer to present facts and arguments to the individual condo unit owners, including arguments of the potential benefits and detriments of filing a lawsuit.” Unlike its failed predecessors, HB 1279 does not require arbitration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    February 14, 2014 —
    Last December, a San Francisco, California “developer’s Twin Peaks house collapsed and slid down a hill during renovations.” The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the house “was being supported by three reinforcing towers, rather than the nine required under its approved plans, according to documents provided to city building inspectors.” According to a report by Department of Building Inspection chief Tom Hui, developer Mel Murphy "’failed to follow and implement the approved plans and the sequence of construction’ in his permit,” as quoted by The San Francisco Chronicle. The report also stated that the work “was not independently inspected as required” though this is “vehemently disputed by Murphy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of