BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness public projectsSeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington multi family design expert witnessSeattle Washington architect 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


    Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

    McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit

    Conflict of Interest Accusations may Spark Lawsuit Against City and City Manager

    Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

    Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

    Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    New Home Permits Surge in Wisconsin

    JAMS Announces Updated Construction Rules

    The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

    Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

    Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

    New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    Condo Board May Be Negligent for not Filing Construction Defect Suit in a Timely Fashion

    Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

    Miami Building Boom Spreads Into Downtown’s Tent City

    Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

    #4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

    UK Agency Seeks Stricter Punishments for Illegal Wastewater Discharges

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

    Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Owner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

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

    CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

    New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action
    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

    Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!

    May 13, 2024 —
    It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the seventh straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2024. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2024. The full list of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out. If you want to see the lists before then, a digital version of the Virginia Super Lawyers Magazine is available here (click on the Virginia magazine). Thanks again to all of you who participated in my nomination and election. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

    March 19, 2024 —
    Kahana Feld congratulates Co-Founding Partner Jason Daniel Feld, Esq., for being named one of three finalists for Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year. Mr. Feld is a nationwide leader in construction claims and an active industry speaker, serving as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, and personal counsel to multiple national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors. Co-Founding Partner, Amir Kahana, states, “Jason is incredibly deserving of this recognition. When he joined our firm, we were 3 lawyers in one city, and seven years later, we are a national firm with over 65 attorneys in 10 cities and 6 states. Jason is a natural leader who is highly respected. He has earned the trust of his carrier clients, as well as his colleagues in the industry. In addition to everything he does for Kahana Feld, he also works tirelessly on behalf of CLM and has been a great leader in the Orange County Chapter. I am thrilled to see Jason receive the recognition he richly deserves.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Washington Supreme Court issued their opinion today on Williams v. Athletic Field, perhaps the most talked about construction law case in the past few years. I have discussed this case exhaustively here on Builders Counsel. Today we have a resolution.

    In an unanimous opinion issued today, the high court sided with lien filers who followed a sample form provided in RCW 60.04.091. Additionally, the court found that a lien company - and presumably other persons - could sign the lien for the lien claimant, as an agent, without invalidating the lien.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

    March 22, 2018 —
    Based on recent fire test results, mass timber groups have adjusted product certification standards to require the use of cross-laminated timber with structural adhesives tested to demonstrate better fire performance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    There is No Claims File Privilege in Florida, Despite What Insurers Want You to Think

    June 17, 2024 —
    As Florida insurers continue their attempts to narrow protections for policyholders, it is imperative - now more than ever - that insureds be well-informed and know their rights. Most recently, in Florida, insurers are attempting to weaponize the death of Senate Bill 1726 and House Bill 1287 to limit the documents disclosed to policyholders. Specifically, the proposed bill, which required insurers to disclose their claims file to policyholders, hoped to thwart insurers from utilizing “claims file privilege” to obstruct justice for policyholders and help level the playing field. The goal of the proposed bill was to promote transparency of the claim adjustment process and undercut insurers’ attempts to dodge discovery of relevant and necessary information during litigation, forcing the insurers to fully and honestly justify their basis for withholding coverage . Unfortunately for policyholders, on March 8, 2024, the proposed legislation was not passed by the Insurance and Banking Subcommittee. While insurers want you to believe this is a significant victory and a free pass to continue withholding documents under a “claims file privilege,” this is not the case. The proposed bill merely codified current Florida law – simply put, the “claims file privilege” never existed, and still does not. Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Stephanie A. Giagnorio, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com Ms. Giagnorio may be contacted at SGiagnorio@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year

    September 21, 2020 —
    I discussed several of the statutory changes affecting the construction industry here at Construction Law Musings in the run-up to July 1, 2020. One of those changes, an amendment to Virginia Code Section 43-13, may add another arrow to the collection quiver of subcontractors and suppliers. As part of the previously-linked rundown, I highlighted one of the big additions in 2020, namely the amendment making those pesky clauses that let those up the payment chain from you hold money on “this or any other project” void as against public policy. The other big addition to 43-13 is the change that adds a possible civil cause of action for downstream and unpaid subcontractors and suppliers in the event that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor are not first used to pay their downstream contractors and suppliers. Prior to July 1, 2020, this statute provided criminal penalties for such behavior but did not contain the possibility of a civil penalty. The operative language for the change is as follows:
    The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director, or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure for any other purpose than paying such amounts due on the project shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    September 03, 2014 —
    On August 27, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal weighed in on whether prevailing wages are required for public contracts in situations where work is performed in furtherance of the project but at a permanent offsite manufacturing facility that is not exclusively dedicated to the project. In Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 401 v. John C. Duncan and Russ Will Mechanical, the project at issue was for a community college district where Russ Will was the HVAC subcontractor. The contract documents required contractors to pay prevailing wages but they did not limit where or how Russ Will would fabricate sheet metal required for the job. Russ Will used its existing fabrication facility to form the sheet metal. An employee of Russ Will filed a complaint with the DIR alleging he should have been paid prevailing wages for work related to the project. The worker fabricated sheet metal for the project but at Russ Will’s Hayward facility, not at the site. The DIR issued a coverage determination in which it concluded that Russ Will was required to pay prevailing wages for the offsite fabrication work associated with the project. The DIR's determination turned on whether Russ Will was exempt from the prevailing wage law as a material supplier. To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located at the site of the public work. Following the DIR determination, Rush Will filed an administrative appeal. The department reversed its initial coverage determination, concluding that the offsite fabrication performed by Russ Will was not subject to the prevailing wage law. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations

    October 08, 2014 —
    According to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.” In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.” While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of