BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington building code compliance expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington civil engineer 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


    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    Property Owners Sue San Francisco Over Sinking Sidewalks

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera

    Can a Lease Force a Tenant's Insurer to Defend the Landlord?

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

    Evolving Climate Patterns and Extreme Weather Demand New Building Methods

    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    Savera Sandhu Joins Newmeyer Dillion As Partner

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Attention Contractors: U.S. Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Avoiding Discrimination When Using AI in Hiring

    Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

    Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

    Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office on Another Successful MSJ!

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

    Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak

    Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

    New York Building Boom Spurs Corruption Probe After Death

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Class Action Certification by Association for “Matters of Common Interest”

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    Nine Gibbs Giden Partners Listed in Southern California Super Lawyers 2022

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

    ASCE Statement on House Failure to Pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    NTSB Issues 'Urgent' Recommendations After Mass. Pipeline Explosions

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

    Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring
    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

    Serving Notice of Nonpayment Under Miller Act

    January 20, 2020 —
    Under the federal Miller Act, if a claimant is NOT in privity with the prime contractor, it needs to serve a “notice of nonpayment” within 90 days of its final furnishing. In this manner, 40 U.S.C. 3133 (b)(2) states: A person having a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing the payment bond may bring a civil action on the payment bond on giving written notice to the contractor within 90 days from the date on which the person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which the claim is made. The action must state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed. The notice shall be served–
    (A) by any means that provides written, third-party verification of delivery to the contractor at any place the contractor maintains an office or conducts business or at the contractor’s residence; or (B) in any manner in which the United States marshal of the district in which the public improvement is situated by law may serve summons.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

    December 16, 2023 —
    Introduction In a matter of “first impression,” on November 30, 2023, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Pennsauken Joint Venture v. Township of Pennsauken and Terminal Construction Corp., finding that the New Jersey Public Works Contractor Registration Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.48 to -56.57 (“PWCRA” or the “Act”), applies to a joint venture formed for the sole purpose of bidding on a public works contract. Therefore, the Court held that the PWCRA requires any joint venture bidding on public works projects in New Jersey to be registered under the Act at the time of bid submission. Accordingly, the Township of Pennsauken acted within its authority and properly rejected the bid submission of the Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Joint Venture which was not registered under the Act in the name of the joint venture at the time of its bid submission, despite the individual members of the joint venture being registered. Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas J. Zaita, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zaita may be contacted at nzaita@pecklaw.com Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    June 26, 2014 —
    Big Builder’s Les Shaver reported that William Lyon Homes has acquired Polygon Northwest Company, “the largest private home builder in the [Pacific Northwest] region,” for “approximately $520 million.” "Polygon Northwest Company brings an attractive level consistency to William Lyon Homes with a steady average of 57 homes per month and a portfolio of communities that includes a nice product mix of single family detached [80 percent] and attached product [20 percent]," Catherine LaFemina, director of business development in the Seattle market for Metrostudy, told Big Builder. "Based on the trailing 12 months of home closings, [June 2013 to May 2014], Lyon’s acquisition of Polygon will increase the volume of homes being delivered by 50 percent to an average monthly volume of about 115 homes per month." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    July 11, 2018 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
    Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com

    ASCE Statement on National Dam Safety Awareness Day - May 31

    June 06, 2022 —
    Washington, DC. – Nationwide, more than 92,000 dams protect communities across the country, providing numerous services including irrigation, water conservation, and flood protection. Advocating for the safety, robustness, and sustainability of our nation's dams is a top priority for ASCE as we recognize May 31 as National Dam Safety Awareness Day. National Dam Safety Awareness Day is observed in remembrance of the "Johnstown Flood" on May 31, 1889. Failures of the South Fork Dam near Johnstown, PA, resulted in the death of more than 2,200 people. This tragedy serves as an illustration of the critical importance of effectively maintaining and managing our nation's dams and ensuring that adequate dam safety measures remain in place to avoid these preventable tragedies. ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave the nation's dams a "D" grade. Of the nation's 92,000 dams, more than 15,000 are classified as having "high hazard potential", meaning that dam failure would result in the loss of life. While increased state investment in dam safety programs has allowed for better assessment of dams and the ability to identify rehabilitation needs as well as potential hazards, increased federal investment is still needed to ensure the safety of dams nationwide. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

    August 01, 2023 —
    Contractors appreciate how difficult it often is on a technical level to perform work in or near wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas. Such work is even more difficult due to the complex, and ever-changing regulations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA applies to “navigable waters”, which are defined as “the waters of the United States.” To determine whether certain wetlands are in fact “the waters of the United States”, contractors and owners have had to engage in a fact-intensive “significant-nexus” determination dependent upon a lengthy list of hydrological and ecological factors found in the regulations. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the applicability of those regulations and instituted a simpler test to determine whether wetlands on an owner’s property fall within them. In Sackett v. EPA, the Sacketts purchased property near a lake in Idaho. In preparation for building a home, they began backfilling the site with dirt and rocks. A few months later, the EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order informing them that their backfilling violated the CWA because their property was part of protected wetlands. The EPA demanded that the Sacketts immediately undertake activities to restore the site and threatened the Sacketts with penalties of over $40,000 per day if they did not comply. According to the EPA, the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot fell under the jurisdiction of the CWA because they were “adjacent to” (i.e., in the same neighborhood as) an unnamed tributary on the other side of a 30-foot road, which fed into the nearby lake. The EPA concluded that the Sacketts’ wetlands, when considered together with a large nearby wetland complex, significantly affected the ecology of the lake. Thus, the EPA charged that the Sacketts had illegally dumped soil and gravel into “the waters of the United States.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson PC
    Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com

    What Is a Construction Defect in California?

    October 25, 2013 —
    William Naumann answers that question for the site SuperLawyers. Mr. Naumann notes that a construction defect “is a deficiency in the design or construction of a building or structure,” with specific examples of including “significant cracks in the slab and/or foundation; unevenness in floor slabs caused by abnormal soils movement; leaky roofs, windows, or door,” though he admits that he has not provided an all-inclusive list. He also discusses the deadlines for various types of construction defects, which in California range from 1 year to 10 years, depending on what the defect is. Untreated wood posts only get two years, while steel fences must be free of defects for four. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    December 09, 2011 —

    A federal judge dismissed a coverage lawsuit brought by Mid Continent Casualty Company against its insured, Greater Midwest Builders Ltd.

    Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action in response to a suit filed in Johnson County District Court, seeking a judicial determination that it had no coverage obligation for claims asserted against its insured. This case was stayed until the state court action entered judgment against the insured. The prevailing parties then commenced a garnishment action against the plaintiff, and another insurance company, in state court in Missouri. The court was asked whether it should lift the stay and proceed with the case, or decline jurisdiction in favor of resolution in the Missouri state court.

    The court granted the motion to dismiss holding that proceeding with the case would lead to protracted, piecemeal litigation, while deferring to the Missouri state court would decide all the claims involved in the dispute.

    Read the court’s decision…

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