BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington structural concrete expertSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington construction expert testimony
    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


    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Contractors Battle Bitter Winters at $11.8B Site C Hydro Project in Canada

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    No Additional Insured Coverage for Subcontractor's Work Outside Policy Period

    In UK, 16th Century Abbey Modernizes Heating System by Going Back to Roman Times

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Construction Contracts Need Amending Post COVID-19 Shutdowns

    Former Superintendent Sentenced in Rhode Island Tainted Fill Case

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

    Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (07/13/22)

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Homebuilding Held Back by Lack of Skilled Workers

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Renovate or Demolish Milwaukee’s Historic City Hall?

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Environmental Law Violations: When you Should Hire a Lawyer

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/25/23) – Artificial Intelligence, Proptech Innovation, and Drone Adoption

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    Could This Gel Help Tame the California Fires?

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    Minnesota Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade for the Second Time

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

    Get to Know BJ Siegel: Former Apple Executive and Co-Founder of Juno

    Don't Count On a Housing Slowdown to Improve Affordability

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/8/24) – Hotel Labor Disputes, a Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Freddie Mac’s New Policies

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    A Year-End Review of the Environmental Regulatory Landscape

    Blog Completes Fifteenth Year

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Balfour Taps Qinetiq’s Quinn as new CEO to Revamp Builder

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures
    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

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    May 30, 2018 —
    In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the notice and repair process set forth in chapter 558, Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” within the meaning of a commercial liability policy issued by Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”) to Altman Contractors, Inc. (“Altman”). The Court found that because the chapter 558 pre-suit process is an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” as included in the definition of “suit” in the policy by C&F to Altman, C&F had a duty to defend Altman during the chapter 558 process, prior to the filing of a formal lawsuit. Chapter 558, titled “Construction Defects,” sets forth procedural requirements before a claimant may file a construction defect action. It requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim on the applicable contractor, subcontractor, supplier, and/or design professional prior to filing a construction defect lawsuit. The legislature intended for Chapter 558 to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in certain construction defect matters allowing an opportunity to resolve the claim without further legal process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Garcia, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Garcia may be contacted at daniel.garcia@grsm.com

    Construction Executives Expect Improvements in the Year Ahead

    November 12, 2019 —
    Vistage’s recent survey captured responses from 1,463 CEOs of small and mid-sized businesses in a variety of industries across the United States. Included in this national data is 224 responses from CEOs in the construction industry, a reliable base for comparing the sentiment of CEOs in construction to the national base. Each quarter, the survey captures:
    • CEO sentiment on the current and future state of the national economy;
    • Expectations for revenue and profitability; and
    • Expansion plans, specifically hiring and investments.
    CONSTRUCTION CEOS ARE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE When asked about revenue expectations, 65% of CEOs in construction reported projections for increased revenues in the coming year, which is on par with the national results. Additionally, 61% expect their profitability to improve over the next 12 months, notably higher than the national figure of 54%. Reprinted courtesy of Joe Galvin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Amos Rex – A Museum for the Digital Age

    September 10, 2018 —
    In the very heart of Helsinki, a new museum is set to open its doors to showcase the art of the future. Amos Rex is an architectural and artistic gem that seeks to make modern art more accessible for people to experience and enjoy. The construction work for the museum was almost completed when I visited the site in early August. I met with Kai Kartio, an art historian with years of experience as a museum director. Kartio has been involved in the construction of Amos Rex from the beginning. The forerunner of Amos Rex was the Amos Anderson Art Museum, which was run by the Konstsamfundet foundation for 50 years in its founder’s own building nearby. Anderson was a Finnish newspaper tycoon and patron of arts who bequeathed his estate to the foundation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    Carbon Monoxide Injuries Caused by One Occurrence

    April 01, 2014 —
    Injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning to two families living in the insured's apartment complex arose from a single occurrence. Kosnoski v. Rogers, No. 13-0494, Memorandum and Decision (W. Va. Feb. 18, 2014). The families lived in two apartments in the same complex owed by Marc Rogers. Members of the two families suffered serious injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning and one family member died. A gas boiler furnace in the basement of the apartment complex created the carbon monoxide. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    February 10, 2012 —

    Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”

    The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”

    A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”

    Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”

    All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.

    Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”

    In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

    December 19, 2018 —
    Elon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles. A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    April 11, 2018 —
    When it comes to Miller Act payment bond claims, repairing one’s own work does NOT extend the one year statute of limitations to file suit on a Miler Act payment bond. Belonger Corp., Inc. v. BW Contracting Services, Inc., 2018 WL 704379, *3 (E.D. Wisconsin 2018) (“The courts that have considered this question tend to agree that, once a subcontractor completes its work under the subcontract, repairs or corrections to that work do not fall within the meaning of ‘labor’ or ‘materials’ and, as such, do not extend the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations.”). Well, what if the subcontractor was repairing its own work due to an issue caused by another subcontractor? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

    May 15, 2023 —
    Remember my admonishment to get your Virginia contractor’s license? Well, that will get easier for experienced construction professionals that hold a license from a state or territory outside of Virginia beginning on July 1, 2023. In this past session of the General Assembly, the Youngkin administration pushed and the legislature passed a universal licensure statute that (with some exceptions for professional services as defined in Va. Code 2.2-4301) will allow those (including contractors) who are licensed in other states to use that license to obtain a Virginia license. The new legislation will require DPOR to recognize another state’s license where the contractor meets the following requirements:
    1. The individual holds a current and valid professional or occupational license or government certification in another state in a profession or occupation with a similar scope of practice, as determined by the board in the Commonwealth
    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