BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington construction expert witness public projectsSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction experts
    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


    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    Is Your Website Accessible And Are You Liable If It Isn't?

    Contractor Entitled to Continued Defense Against Allegations of Faulty Construction

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    Quick Note: Lis Pendens Bond When Lis Pendens Not Founded On Recorded Instrument Or Statute

    7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/27/21)

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

    Colorado Senate Committee Approves Construction Defect Bill

    Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

    Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

    Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed

    Is the Obsession With Recordable Injury Rates a Deadly Safety Distraction?

    Plans Go High Tech

    London’s Best Districts Draw Buyers on Italian Triple Dip

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    The Administrative Procedure Act and the Evolution of Environmental Law

    Dallas Condo Project to Expand

    Surveys: Hundreds of Design Professionals See Big COVID-19 Business Impacts

    In Phoenix, Crews Thread Needle With $730M Broadway Curve Revamp

    Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power

    Sinking Floor Does Not Meet Strict Definition of Collapse

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

    NY Project Produces America's First Utility Scale Wind Power

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

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

    Sanibel Causeway Repair: Contractors Flooded Site With Crews, Resources

    Hundreds Celebrated the Grand Opening of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California Riverside Construction Training Center

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

    Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.

    The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.

    The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.

    The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”

    The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.

    The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”

    The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    LAX Construction Defect Suit May Run into Statute of Limitations

    December 30, 2013 —
    Current arguments over the claims made by LAX that Runway 25L was built in a defective manner by Tutor-Saliba/O&G Industries are hinging over whether the airport knew the runway was defective less than four years after the construction was completed. The runway was built almost five years ago, and Tutor-Saliba is claiming that Los Angeles World Airports has delayed too long in making a construction defect complaint. Tutor-Saliba is not conceding that the runway is defective, only that if it were, the airport would have known it earlier. Los Angeles World Airports, which operates LAX, is not commenting on the matter, but Robert Span, an aviation attorney at Steinbrecher & Span, told the Daily Breeze that while “there is a four year statute of limitations for dealing with construction defects, but that’s for what they called patent defects,” and that “there’s a 10-year statute of limitations for construction projects where the defect that is alleged is called latent — something that would not be readily apparent.” Tim Pierce, a construction attorney at K&L Gates LLP described it as “a common defense,” though he said it is “raised in most cases and only works in some.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

    June 01, 2011 —

    Served with a lawsuit that you turned over to your insurer? Insurer refusing to defend you? Well, find some hope in this news. Washington’s IFCA has the claws to ensure that insurers perform their duties.

    Contractors heavily rely on the defense provisions of their Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies. In construction, a legal dispute can easily rear its head when you least expect it. Luckily, Washington registered contractors are required to maintain CGL insurance. That insurance often provides contractors with adequate legal defense in the event that they are sued.

    But, what if your insurer turns down the defense request? They might be staring at massive damages. A current Reiser Legal client, Australia Unlimited, Inc., recently won a large verdict against Hartford Insurance, after the insurer unreasonably denied their claim. The firm who represented Australia Unlimited Inc. in that case, Hackett Beecher and Hart, were successful in procuring a $5.43 Million verdict

    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

    Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

    July 05, 2023 —
    Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (June 13, 2023) – On June 1, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law CS/SB 7052 (the Act), increasing consumer protection and insurer accountability in Florida. The newly enacted and amended statutes under CS/SB 7052 bolster policyholder protections and impose greater insurer oversight, including heightened penalties for insurer misdeeds in the state under a new law that will take effect on July 1, 2023 (this legal alert does not address all of the statutory revisions associated with the Act). As House Speaker Paul Renner noted, “The insurance legislation signed by Governor DeSantis today . . . not only empowers homeowners, but also cultivates market-driven competition, ultimately leading to lower costs.” Statutory Revisions Regarding Insurance Coverage The Act prohibits authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a property insurance policy for a residential property or dwelling that was damaged by any covered peril until the earlier of: (a) when the property has been repaired; or (b) one year after the insurer issues the final claim payment. The Act also expands current law prohibiting authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a residential property insurance policy until 90 days after repairs are completed for damages resulting from a hurricane or wind loss that is the subject of a state of emergency declared by the Governor and for which the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has issued an emergency order. See Fla. Stat. §627.4133(2)(d)(1)(a) and (b) (Notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premium). Reprinted courtesy of Laura Farrant, Lewis Brisbois and Bradley S. Fischer, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Farrant may be contacted at Laura.Farrant@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Fischer may be contacted at Bradley.Fischer@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    February 10, 2012 —

    A contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.

    The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.

    Read the full story…

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

    First-Time Buyers Home Sales Stagnates

    October 22, 2014 —
    Despite a rise overall in home sales, “first-time buyer share remained unchanged from the previous two months at 29%, far behind the historical average first-time buyer share of about 40%,” reported National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing. However, “[e]xisting home sales increased to the highest level of the year, having posted gains for five of the last six months, despite weakness among first-time buyers. Existing home sales increased 2.4% in September, but remain 1.7% below the same period a year ago.” According to Eye on Housing, existing sales is expected to continue to increase throughout the year, though the first-time buyer segment is “the weak spot.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    September 03, 2014 —
    Deutsche Bank wants “to void a loan modification it claims resulted in a $125,000 discount on the wrong homeowners' outstanding mortgage,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Furthermore, even though the Deutsche Bank “obtained a default judgment a year ago… a New Jersey federal judge is currently considering the homeowners' motion to vacate it, most recently ordering a hearing to determine whether the couple was properly served.” According to the complaint, the Deutsche Bank claims that “its mortgage servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, mistakenly offered the modification to Lorraine and Raymond Lindsey of Franklinville, N.J., though the terms of the deal were intended for other homeowners in connection with a loan held by a different bank.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    December 11, 2013 —
    Recent court decisions have tended to view construction defects as covered under insurance policies, “allowing construction companies to shift the costs of their faulty workmanship to their insurers, thereby reversing the previous public policy trend against coverage for such claims.” John Husmann and Adam Fleischer of Bates Carey Nicolaides review some of the 2013 decisions that reversed “the previous public policy trend against coverage for such claims.” They note that “for some time, courts have recognized that there is a public policy against allowing construction companies to get paid to perform faulty workmanship, and then force their insurers to be the financers for the repair and replacement costs.” But in 2013, the courts “strayed from those public policy considerations upon which previous decisions relied.” With reference to specific cases and decisions, they discuss three ways in which the courts have change course. The first is whether faulty workmanship is an “occurrence.” The next is if faulty workmanship is covered when it damages non-faulty work of the same project. And finally, whether exclusions for particular parts of the property extend to the work done in that area. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of