BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington soil failure expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington architectural expert witnessSeattle Washington ada design expert witnessSeattle Washington architect expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing construction expert
    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


    LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix

    Musings: Moving or Going into a New Service Area, There is More to It Than Just…

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    Novation Agreements Under Federal Contracts

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Court of Appeals Confirms that King County Superior Court’s Jury Selection Process Satisfies Due Process Requirements

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry

    Continuing Breach Doctrine

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    16 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2021 Top Lawyers!

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    Making the World’s Longest Undersea Railway Tunnel Possible with BIM

    The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

    Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

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

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    A New Lawsuit Might Change the Real Estate Industry Forever

    As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

    Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    Homebuilding in Las Vegas Slows but Doesn’t Fall

    Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

    ASCE Statement on Devastating Impacts of Hurricane Helene

    New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

    Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges
    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

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    February 18, 2019 —
    The saying “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry” can too often apply in the construction industry. A contractor may receive a description of site conditions that is ultimately found flawed or misleading. The costs associated with addressing these surprise conditions often fall on the contractor to pay. The following article details proactive steps to avoid costly obstacles that may cause a project’s success to go awry. What are Differing Site Conditions? There are generally two recognized types of differing site conditions. The first, often referred to as a “Type I Changed Condition,” exists when a specification in the conditions indicated in the contract documents varies from what is represented. The second category, generally referred to as a “Type II Changed Condition,” is a variance so unusual in its nature that it materially differs from conditions ordinarily encountered in performing the type of work called for in the geographic area where the project is located. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah E. Carson, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carson may be contacted at secarson@smithcurrie.com

    Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

    December 07, 2020 —
    In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Applied to Pass-Through Agreements

    June 19, 2023 —
    Pass-through claims are claims by a party that has suffered damages but does not have a contractual relationship with the entity that caused the damages. In the construction industry, subcontractors commonly have claims for additional costs based on actions or inactions by the owner. However, since the subcontractor is not in privity of contract with the owner, it has no direct cause of action against the owner other than, perhaps, on a nongovernment project, a lien claim. In such cases, subcontractors may seek to pass the claim through the general contractor, who is in privity with the owner, to the owner. Indeed, many construction contracts require the subcontractor, in such cases of owner-caused damages, to pass the claim through the general contractor to the owner. And since the harm visited on a subcontractor by the owner usually also affected the general contractor, the subcontractor’s claim is packaged together with the general contractor’s claim, which is usually greater, for presentation to the owner and, if not resolved, litigation with the owner. Reprinted courtesy of Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    December 09, 2011 —

    Construction defect claims are now occurrences for insurance purposes in four states, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, and South Carolina, yet there are still frustrations for commercial general liability policyholders. Business Insurance describes court decisions on whether construction defect claims are covered as “incongruous,” and this drives up coverage and litigation costs. Construction firms often find they are defending themselves on two fronts, both the construction defect claim and also whether their insurance covers it.

    Frank Armstrong, the Senior Vice President and National Director of Construction Claims for Willis North America says that the problem starts with the word “occurrence,” as various state courts have different interpretations of the word. “Certain pieces of it don’t fit well, at lest according to some courts in the country, with coverage for construction defect risks.”

    Another insurance executive, Julian Ehlich, the Senior Vice President of Claims for Aon Risk Solutions’ construction services group notes that “jurisdictions differ, so policyholders don’t know what they’re going to get.”

    Read the full story…

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

    What You Don’t Know About Construction Law Can Hurt Your Engineering Firm (Law Note)

    January 28, 2019 —
    Welcome to a new year! By now, you’ve eaten the last of the Christmas cookies, opened all of your presents, and rung in 2019. Back to business, right? The new year is always a good time to remind your employees, and yourself, that there are no shortcuts on the success train. Sure, you can sometimes skate by for awhile, but karma has a way of catching up with you. One thing to keep in mind is that if you practice in multiple states: be sure you are well aware of the rules and regulations concerning your license in each state. Each state does things a little differently, and what may be perfectly acceptable in one state may not be in another state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    November 13, 2013 —
    The Washington-based timber giant, Weyerhaeuser, has announced that has sold off its homebuilding business. The division went by the name of WRECO (Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company) and comprised five home builders, Maracay Homes, Pardee Homes, Quadrant Homes, Trendmaker Homes, and Winchester Homes. The division was bought by TRI Pointe Homes for about $2.7 billion of which $700 million was paid in cash. Weyerhaeuser intends to focus on their core business of timber products. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    January 26, 2016 —
    In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    November 19, 2021 —
    It is important to remember that if you are going to substitute materials from those specified, you need to make sure there is proper approval in doing so–make sure to comply with the contractual requirements to substitute materials. Otherwise, you could be in a situation where you are contractually required to remove the installed substituted materials and replace with the correct specified materials. This is not the situation you want to find yourself in because this is oftentimes a costly endeavor. This was the situation in Appeal-of-Sauer, Inc., discussed below, on a federal project. The best thing that you can do is comply with the contractual requirements if you want to substitute materials. If you are in the situation where it is too late, i.e., you already installed incorrect materials, you want to demonstrate the substituted materials are functionally equivalent to the specified materials and/or come up with an engineering solution, as required, that could be less costly then ripping out the installed material and replacing with the correct material. Even doing so, however, is not a “get out of jail free card” and does not necessarily mean there is not a strong basis to require you to install the correct specified material. In Appeal of- Sauer, Inc., ASBCA 61847, 2021 WL 4888192 (ASBCA September 29, 2021), a federal project’s engineering requirements required cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system. However, the prime contractor installed PVC piping instead of cast iron piping. The prime contractor believed it had the appropriate approval through its submittal. The government, through its contracting officer, directed the prime contractor to remove installed PVC piping to replace with cast iron. The government did not believe PVC piping was the functional equivalent of cast iron piping for the above ground sanitary system due to its concern with the noise level of waste materials flowing through the piping. The prime contractor submitted a claim for its removal and replacement costs which was denied by the contracting officer. On appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Board agreed with the contracting officer explaining: “While we agree that a design change could be approved by the designer of record and brought to the attention of the government before being incorporated into the design documents, the [prime contractor’s] task order required that such a design change meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and accepted proposal. The plumbing submittal [the prime contractor] issued here, showing the use of PVC instead of cast iron for the above ground waste piping, did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Appeal of-Sauer, Inc., supra. 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