BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington construction expert witnessesSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural expert witnessSeattle Washington delay claim 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


    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Fla. Researchers Probe 'Mother of All Sinkholes'

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Sanibel Causeway Repair: Contractors Flooded Site With Crews, Resources

    Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

    Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

    Tips for Drafting Construction Contracts

    Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

    Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Under Hawaii Law, but All is not Lost for Insured Contractor

    General Contractors Can Be Sued by a Subcontractor’s Injured Employee

    Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN

    No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

    Key Economic & Geopolitical Themes To Monitor In 2024

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    What to do When the Worst Happens: Responding to a Cybersecurity Breach

    Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    Wow! A Mechanic’s Lien Bill That Helps Subcontractors and Suppliers

    Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    Top Developments March 2024

    Margins May Shrink for Home Builders

    Appraisal Ordered After Carrier Finds Loss Even if Cause Disputed
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Seattle's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    December 02, 2019 —
    With its term now under way, the U.S. Supreme Court could change federal laws with industry impact—from where huge pipelines can be built and new regulation of pollution in groundwater to whether LGBTQ workers have anti-bias rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    February 27, 2023 —
    As those who read Construction Law Musings on a regular basis know, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my construction law practice. These tricky and strictly enforced statutory collection tools are very powerful when correctly recorded and utterly useless if they aren’t recorded in a timely fashion and with the correct information contained within them. Couple that fact with recent changes to the mechanic’s lien form in 2019, and I feel the need to give a quick refresher. If you’ve kept up with Musings, you know about the two big numbers for Virginia mechanic’s lien timing, 90 and 150. These should be kept in mind for every general contractor, subcontractor, or supplier on any construction project in Virginia. Virginia Code Section 43-4 sets out the reasons to keep these numbers in mind. The code section sets out why you need to know these numbers. The 90 refers to the deadline for recording a lien. This number affects the right to a lien in Virginia. In order to preserve lien rights, a construction contractor must record the lien within ninety days of the last day of the last month in which the last work was performed or no later than ninety days from the date of completion of the project or other termination of work. The short version is that most general contractors on commercial projects have 90 days from the last work in which to record their lien and most subcontractors have 90 days from the last day of the last month of work. However, the best practice is to simply calculate the 90 days from the last work performed or material supplied to avoid issues and arguments between attorneys regarding timing. 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

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    September 09, 2024 —
    A contract awarded, protested, terminated, appealed, then reinstated. It’s no secret that federal construction procurements are plagued with uncertainty. From delays, constructive suspensions, compromised supply chains, the litigation-laden critical path method, and the mandate for all construction materials used in federally funded projects for infrastructure to be produced in the United States under the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) (to name just a few traditional and emerging favorites), just one of these issues could fill the rest of anyone’s month with substantive research. To add one more, which is entirely unique to bid protests, federal contractors–including construction contractors–listed in a General Service Administration (GSA) Schedule may have new grounds to have a contract award reinstated that was terminated by a federal agency pending a GAO decision. GAO Protest An initial GAO protest filed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) argued that the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (Agency) wrongfully made an award to Kearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney) when the Agency: (1) improperly evaluated quotes; and (2) failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. At issue was a competed task order with Kearney under a GSA FSS multiple-award contract. Before the GAO issued an opinion, however, it held an unrecorded predictive-outcome conference with Deloitte and Kearney where the only mutual consensus was the likely ineligibility of all offerors for the relevant award. The Agency subsequently elected to take corrective action, terminating Kearney’s contract award for convenience, amending the solicitation to avoid issues (including undisputed issues) addressed in the GAO protest. After the Agency adopted their corrective action, the GAO protest was dismissed as academic and moot. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    April 17, 2019 —
    In response to a tragic balcony collapse incident where the public later learned the contractor had paid millions to settlement defect cases in the preceding years, the California legislature passed, the state contractor’s license board is now implementing, a public disclosure requirement for certain construction defect claims. The disclosure requirement is triggered by a judgment (which is not a new requirement), an arbitration award, or a settlement of certain construction defect claims. These requirements are codified at California Business & Professions Code sections 7071.20-22. What types of Projects: This requirement applies only if all of the following apply:
    A) Residential B) Multi-Family; and C) Rental property
    Limitations on Claims – The reporting requirement only applies if all of the following are true:
    A) The claim is against a CSLB licensee (not a design professional) acting in the capacity of a contractor; B) The claim is for a structural defect; C) The total claim is valued at $1 million (not including investigation costs); D) SB800 does not apply; E) The action was filed after January 1, 2019; and F) If a lawsuit, the case was designated complex by the courts (which may not apply if only contractor is sued).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ian Williamson, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Williamson may be contacted at igwilliamson@grsm.com

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    September 20, 2017 —
    My colleagues Rina Carmel, Karin Aldama and I authored an article entitled, "To Settle or Not to Settle? Bad-Faith Implications in Resolving Underlying Actions." The article appears in the current edition of Coverage, published by the Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee of the ABA. The article is here. The article addresses the obstacles faced when settling liability claims. The insurer and insured may have fundamental disagreements on whether to settle or how much to pay in settlement. Should the insured contribute to the settlement? Whether the insurer should seek from the policyholder, or the policyholder offers to make, a settlement contribution presents thorny issues, including whether such a contribution can convert an excess demand into a demand within limits—which, in turn, affects the standard for evaluating the insurer’s response to the third-party demand. On the other hand, the policy holder may not want to settle and set a bad precedent. 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

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    January 17, 2022 —
    First things first. Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one. To start things off in the new year we’ve got an employment-related case for you – Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29 (2021) – a California Supreme Court case involving the Privette Doctrine. For those not familiar with the Privette Doctrine, the Privette Doctrine is named after the case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), which held that project owners and higher-tiered contractors are not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of lower-tiered contractors. Since then, courts have carved out a few exceptions to the Privette Doctrine including the “retained control exception” (also known as the Hooker exception – that’s the name of the case not the occupation of the injured worker) whereby a “hirer,” that is, the higher-tiered party who hired the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured, can be held liable if the hirer: (1) retains control over any part of the lower-tiered party’s work; and (2) negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. Another exception is the “concealed hazard exception” (also known as the Kinsman exception) whereby a hirer can be held liable if: (1) the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the lower-tiered contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered; and (2) the hirer railed to warn the lower-tiered contractor of that hazard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    January 22, 2014 —
    In Metairie, Louisiana, Paul Unkauf filed a lawsuit after he allegedly “slipped and fell on standing water in the parking garage,” located at Heritage Plaza, according to the Louisiana Record. The defendants, Stewart Development LLC, Stirling Properties LLC, Platinum Parking LLC and First Financial Company, are “accused of permitting standing water to dampen the pathway leading to the elevator bank, failing to dry the pathway, failing to warn of the hazard, failing to properly inspect the area in question, failing to provide a safe means of exit and entrance, being careless and negligent under the circumstances, failing to properly identify and correct defects in design and failing to properly supervise and train employees,” reports the Louisiana Record. Unkauf is seeking an “unspecified amount in damages” for “medical expenses, physical pain, loss of function, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and permanent partial disability.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

    September 25, 2018 —
    In response to national outrage over an infamous adverse possession case in Boulder, Colorado, in which a lawyer and a judge intentionally took their neighbors’ undeveloped land through adverse possession, the Colorado legislature amended the state’s adverse possession statute (C.R.S. § 38-41-101) to make the claim significantly harder to prove. It did this because it believed “there were insufficient ‘obstacles’ to establishing a claim for adverse possession under the existing law.”[1] Effective July 1, 2008, the amendment created a heightened burden of proof, additional element requirements, and the possibility of a losing defendant recovering money from successful plaintiffs for the value of the land they took and the taxes the defendant had paid on that land. The Boulder case eventually settled, but the resulting statutory amendments have drastically changed the landscape of Colorado’s adverse possession law. Ten years later, this blog post takes a brief look at the amended statute, the impact it has had, and questions that have yet to be resolved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com