BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington architectural expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington construction code expert witnessSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle 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


    Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers

    Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

    Tips for Contractors Who Want to Help Rebuild After the California Wildfires

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

    Europe’s Satellites Could Help Catch the Next Climate Disaster

    California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act

    First Trump Agenda Nuggets Hit Construction

    New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    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

    Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance

    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

    Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

    Engineering, Architecture, and Modern Technology – An Interview with Dr. Jakob Strømann-Andersen

    Las Vegas, Back From the Bust, Revives Dead Projects

    Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    2024 Construction Law Update

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Insurance Agent Sued for Lapse in Coverage after House Collapses

    Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act Provides New Opportunities for Owners, Developers, and Contractors

    Florida Court of Appeals Holds Underlying Tort Case Must Resolve Before Third-Party Spoliation Action Can Be Litigated

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (08/10/22)

    Value In Being Deemed “Statutory Employer” Under Workers Compensation Law

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    Construction Termination Part 2: How to Handle Construction Administration When the Contractor Is Getting Fired

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

    Contractor Allegedly Injured after Slipping on Black Ice Files Suit

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

    Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

    Construction Industry Outlook: Building a Better Tomorrow

    Wonder How 2021 May Differ From 2020? Federal Data Privacy May Be Enacted - Be Prepared

    Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

    Broken Buildings: Legal Rights and Remedies in the Wake of a Collapse
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    #9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

    December 30, 2015 —
    David M. McClain of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC reported on the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the above mentioned case regarding the Vallagio condominiums developed by Metro Inverness, LLC. McClain concluded, “As a builder, the moral of the story here is that you need not rely on the Colorado Legislature to protect your ability to arbitrate construction defect claims asserted against you by homeowners associations. All you need to do is to include within your declaration a valid and enforceable declarant consent provision requiring your consent to amend out of the declaration the arbitration requirement for construction defect claims.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    August 05, 2024 —
    The key risks that should always be taken into account when a contract is signed are risks associated with uncompensated delays and cost increases. Provisions relating to the scope of work deserve significant attention to help minimize these risks. Defining the scope of work is often put on the backburner while parties focus on negotiating the rest of the terms and conditions of the contract. And when these scopes are inserted, they are often not closely reviewed by attorneys who tend to defer to project personnel on scope. These situations can lead to costly disputes. Instead, make sure: (1) the correct plans and specifications have been referenced in the contract; (2) an attorney or his/her business counterpart is familiar with relevant specifications; (3) the exhibit containing the assumptions and clarifications is clearly written, has been coordinated with language in the body of the contract and can be clearly understood by attorneys and business people beyond the preconstruction personnel who drafted them; and (4) the contract addresses the order of precedence in the event of a conflict between or among contract provisions (including exhibits). With regard to specifications referenced above, an attorney review is advised because many specification sections, including submittal sections, change order sections, payment provisions and construction progress documentation sections, regularly vary from the negotiated sections of the actual contract. Contractors also unwittingly accept design risk through performance specifications, and the accompanying obligations and risks are underestimated by those tasked with the initial review of those documents. In sum, a clear scope is as important as clear terms and conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Why Should Businesses Seek Legal Help Early On?

    December 03, 2024 —
    Most business owners are natural problem solvers. They assess the issue that lies before them and develop a strategy to overcome it. It’s a critical mindset to have, but do all business owners have the skillset to solve every issue? While it is understandable that business owners may want to attempt to resolve issues on their own, it is invariably beneficial to obtain guidance for legal issues earlier rather than later. 3 Reasons to Consult an Attorney Sooner than Later Many people might consider working with an attorney to be a last resort. Typically, this is not the case; rather, getting knowledgeable legal counsel sooner than later can help business owners because:
    1. It’s Cheaper: Early legal intervention can often prevent disputes from leading to litigation, which can be expensive. Working with an attorney to resolve a conflict before it escalates into a larger issue is often a good business decision and wise investment.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
    Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

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

    June 03, 2019 —
    In Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause in the contract at issue. The Superior Court—distinguishing between a defendant who files a motion to compel arbitration and a defendant who files preliminary objections based on an arbitration clause—held that, in the latter scenario, if the defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, the statute of limitations is not tolled. This case establishes that, in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seeking to defeat a challenge to a lawsuit based on a purported agreement to arbitrate need to pay close attention to the type of motion the defendant files to defeat the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In Morse, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Fisher Asset Management (Fisher) in 2008 for investment-advisor services. The contract included a provision stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the agreement between the parties shall be determined by arbitration. In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Fisher and two of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint seeking dismissal on grounds that the contract between the plaintiff and Fisher required that the dispute be determined by arbitration. The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the court’s ruling. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles

    January 29, 2014 —
    Construction of the New American Home in Las Vegas, Nevada, to be completed for the 2014 International Builders’ Show, has faced enormous challenges, according to Jennifer Goodman writing for Big Builder. Josh Anderson, owner of Element Building Co., told Goodman “he couldn’t have imagined what lay ahead when he signed on in fall 2012 to the project, which is co-sponsored by BUILDER and the NAHB.” Challenges began during the “design phase” when Anderson “was troubled by the sitting of the house on its lot in the tony Sky Terrace subdivision.” Furthermore, he “balked at the floor plan, which encompassed a traditional design aesthetic and opulent touches.” The project’s architect, Barry Berkus, passed away in late 2012, and his son, Jeffrey Berkus, took over for him. After the plans were “complete and approved by the city,” a labor shortage in Las Vegas made it “particularly difficult to find skilled framers.” The shortage also increased labor costs. Anderson also contended with weather anomalies: “Over the summer, the area set a record for the most consecutive wet days in 30 years. Winds blew sawdust and rain into the open structure, ruining 350 sheets of drywall and slowing down construction,” according to Big Builder. The “mammoth project” is close to completion. Anderson told Big Builder, “I’ve always been a sucker for a challenge.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

    February 01, 2021 —
    The court granted summary judgment to the insurer based upon an endorsement which barred coverage for injuries to employees. Northfield Ins. Co. v. Z&J Mgt. LLC, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10801 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 18, 2020). Ravi Sooklal sued his employer, Z&J Management LLC (Z&J), for injuries at the job site. Northfield, who had issued a CGL policy to Z&L, denied coverage based upon two endorsements. The first was titled "Injury to Employees of Insureds" and the second was "Employers' Liability." Northfield sued for a declaratory judgment and now moved for summary judgment. 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

    Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

    August 03, 2020 —
    In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

    August 19, 2024 —
    Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite. The Huerta Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:
    1. Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
    2. Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
    3. Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com