BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building code expert witnessSeattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness public projectsSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultant
    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


    Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

    White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    New York Appellate Division Reverses Denial of Landlord’s Additional Insured Tender

    Cliffhanger: $451M Upgrade for Treacherous Stretch of Highway 1 in British Columbia

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2024 Southern California Rising Stars List

    The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    Death, Taxes and Attorneys’ Fees in Construction Disputes

    Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    South Carolina Law Clarifies Statue of Repose

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Doing Construction Lead Programs the Right Way

    Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage

    Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Just a House That Uses 90 Percent Less Energy Than Yours, That's All

    When is a Residential Subcontractor not Subject to the VCPA? Read to Find Out

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Tornado Damages Throughout U.S.

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    The Importance of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, with a Focus on Massachusetts Law

    Landlords Beware: Subordination Agreements

    Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    Personal Thoughts on Construction Mediation

    EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule
    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. Drawing 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

    A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

    July 11, 2021 —
    What follows is a brief account of some of the notable U.S. environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Nestle USA, Inc. et al. v. Doe, et al. The Supreme Court has decided another important case interpreting the Alien Tort Statute. Released on June 17, 2021, this decision reverses the Ninth Circuit which had ruled that the respondents—six individuals who alleged they were child slaves employed on Ivory Coast cocoa farms, could sue the American-based companies for aiding and abetting child slave labor. Without dissent, the Court rejected this reading of the ATS and affirmed its own recent rulings on the scope of the ATS. 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

    Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

    March 26, 2014 —
    In Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result. Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda. At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    November 18, 2011 —

    A Pennsylvania contractor in prison for fraud has been convicted with insurance fraud. The York Daily Record reports that Steven D. Gebhart was already in jail for fraud for about $350,000 for work he either failed to finish or even start or by using substandard materials and practices when he was convicted of insurance fraud. Gebbert’s offices were destroyed in a fire that was later determined to be arson. He was not charged with this, but instead for overestimating his losses to the insurance company. Sentencing for the fraud charge will be on December 21.

    Read the full story…

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

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    January 17, 2023 —
    Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Prison Contractors Did Not Follow the Law

    October 15, 2013 —
    Under Iowa law, nearly ninety-percent of the construction workers for the new state prison in Fort Madison should have been Iowa residents. But according to reports obtained by the Des Moines Register, about fifty percent of the workers were from other states. The law responds to a similar one in Illinois that requires that most workers on public projects must be Illinois residents. Many of the out-of-state employees live on the other side of the Mississippi River and, according to Ryan Drew of the Southeast Iowa Building and Construction Trades Council, are part of a broader Illinois-Iowa community, shopping at Iowa retailers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    October 28, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals ruled on September 20, 2011 in the case of Arundel Homeowners Association v. Arundel Green Partners, a construction defect case involving a condominium conversion in San Francisco. Eight years after the Notice of Completion was filed, the homeowners association filed a lawsuit alleging a number of construction defects, including “defective cabinets, waterproofing membranes, wall-cladding, plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing (including slope, drainage and flashings), fire-rated ceilings, and chimney flues.” Three years of settlement negotiations followed.

    Negotiations ended in the eleventh year with the homeowners association filing a lawsuit. Arundel Green argued that the suit should be thrown out as California’s ten-year statute of limitations had passed. The court granted judgment to Arundel Green.

    The homeowners then filed for a new trial and to amend its complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply due to the doctrine of equitable estoppel as Arundel Green’s actions had lead them to believe the issues could be solved without a lawsuit. “The HOA claimed that it was not until after the statute of limitations ran that the HOA realized Arundel Green would not keep its promises; and after this realization, the HOA promptly brought its lawsuit.” The trial court denied the homeowners association’s motions, which the homeowners association appealed.

    In reviewing the case, the Appeals Court compared Arundel to an earlier California Supreme Court case, Lantzy. (The homeowners also cited Lantzy as the basis of their appeal.) In Lantzy, the California Supreme Court set up a four-part test as to whether estoppel could be applied. The court applied these tests and found, as was the case in Lantzy, that there were no grounds for estoppel.

    In Arundel, the court noted that “there are simply no allegations that Arundel Green made any affirmative statement or promise that would lull the HOA into a reasonable belief that its claims would be resolved without filing a lawsuit.” The court also cited Lesko v. Superior Court which included a recommendation that the plaintiffs “send a stipulation?Ķextending time.” This did not happen and the court upheld the dismissal.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    May 04, 2020 —
    When negotiating a construction contract, a contractor and its advisers must first determine the areas of greatest concern. For example, if the contractor believes that the drawings that were prepared by the architect and other design professionals are deficient, the contractor may want to reference those deficiencies in the contract. The contractor should emphasize that it is not responsible for the drawings and to the extent the project schedule is extended to allow the parties to address such issues with the drawings, the contractor would be entitled to additional compensation. This article provides contractors with additional tips, with a broad focus on project delays, for their protection when negotiating and drafting construction contracts, and helps contractors understand the rationale for such tips to better prepare contractors in such negotiations. Contractor’s liability to the owner for delay damages It is imperative that the contract include a waiver of claims for consequential damages. AIA Document A201TM – 2017 includes such a waiver, which provides, in pertinent part, “The Contractor and Owner waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract … This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party’s termination in accordance with Article 14.” Reprinted courtesy of Stuart Rosen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Rosen may be contacted at srosen@proskauer.com

    ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

    November 06, 2013 —
    The El Gallo restaurant in Clovis, California has completed more than $45,000 worth of accessibility upgrades, ranging from installing signs for handicap parking to an $8,000 wheelchair-accessible ramp. The restaurant closed in 2010 when they were sued over alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations. But the El Gallo was only the first Fresno-area business hit with an accessibility lawsuit. And others wanted to avoid getting sued at all. Donald Bremseth, an architect working in Clovis, said that designing modifications to older buildings to bring them into compliance with the ADA has kept him busy, designing dozens of projects in the area. Daniel Zoldak, vice president of Lars Anderson & Associates, noted at on one inspection, he saw about 50 ADA violations, and with the fines at least $2,000 per violation, $10,000 or $20,000 of renovations doesn’t look so bad. That’s under the new law, which also allows a business 30 days to get into compliance. Under the old law, the minimum fine was $4,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of