BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington building code compliance expert witnessSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington construction safety 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


    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    No Repeal Process for Rejected Superstorm Sandy Grant Applications

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

    Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

    OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers

    Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

    Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars

    Contractors: Consult Your Insurance Broker Regarding Your CGL Policy

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites

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

    How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties Is Critical

    Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (11/8/23) – New Handling of Homelessness, Decline in Investments into ESG Funds, and Shrinking of a Homebuyer’s Dollar

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

    Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

    Eleven Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2023 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

    Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted

    Suffolk Construction Drywall Suits Involve Claim for $3 Million in Court Costs

    Righting Past Wrongs Through Equitable Development

    Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

    Contractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier Buildings

    Changes To Commercial Item Contracting

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

    Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

    Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss

    UPDATE: Trade Secrets Pact Allows Resumed Work on $2.6B Ga. Battery Plant
    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. Leveraging 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

    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period

    October 04, 2021 —
    In a recent unpublished decision – Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.– the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a one-year contractual claim limitations clause was valid and enforceable. The Tadych decision is important because it reiterates the strict approach courts will take to a claim limitations clause less than the statutory six years for breach of contract claims prescribed by RCW 4.16.040(1). In other words, when the parties agree to shorten the limitations period, the agreement will be enforced barring any procedural or substantive unconscionability. In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract provided a one-year claim limitations clause in which claims could be raised, and that all claims not raised in the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    June 11, 2014 —
    Come home to a hot iron and smoldering clothes this afternoon? Soon, it may not be a sign of forgetfulness, but rather evidence that you’ve been hacked. In coming years, your smartphone will be able to lock your house, turn on the air conditioning, check whether the milk is out of date, or even heat up your iron. Great news, except that all that convenience could also let criminals open your doors, spy on your family or drive your connected car to their lair. “As these technologies become more sophisticated, it opens up a broader spectrum of threats,” said Gunter Ollmann, chief technology officer of IOActive, a tech security firm in Seattle. A world of connected devices makes it possible “for the bad guys to have permanent entry into your household.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amy Thomson, Bloomberg
    Ms. Thomson may be contacted at athomson6@bloomberg.net

    Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers

    October 12, 2020 —
    The anticipation has been building regarding implementation of the new revenue recognition standard, known as Topic 606, by private companies. Public companies have reported under Topic 606 since the beginning of 2019. For private companies, the time is now. As of January 2020, private companies became subject to Topic 606 for all entities with a year-end of Dec. 31, 2019, or subsequent. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic affecting businesses across the board, this year any company with a year-end financial statement not yet issued can defer implementation of Topic 606 until the contractors’ next year end that falls after Dec. 15, 2020. What have we learned about the impact of Topic 606, if any, on construction contractors’ financial statements? The most significant impact relates to the presentation of contract assets and contract liabilities, and the disclosures associated with Topic 606. The recording of what is known as “the cost to fulfill a contract” is another area that has been affected. PRESENTATION OF CONTRACT ASSET AND CONTRACT LIABILITY A contract asset is defined in Topic 606 as an entity’s right to consideration in exchange for goods or services the entity has transferred to a customer, conditional on something other than the passage of time. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Sisk & Robert Mercado, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Sisk may be contacted at Christopher.sisk@marcumllp.com Mr. Mercado may be contacted at Robert.mercado@marcumllp.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

    March 06, 2022 —
    A business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:
    • whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
    • whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.
    As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”[4] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover

    September 01, 2011 —

    A policy’s “other insurance” clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).

    Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition and construction project. Hathaway was insured by Zurich. Reinhardt Roofing was the roofing subcontractor. Reinhardt was insured by Valley Forge under a policy which named Hathaway as an additional insured. The subcontract also required Reinhardt to indemnify Hathaway for acts or omissions arising from Reinhardt’s work unless Hathaway was solely negligent.

    Four of Reinhardt’s workers were injured when a canopy roof on which they were working collapsed. At the time of the accident, Hathaway’s on-site supervisor was inspecting a gap in the canopy roof, but did not order Reinhardt’s workers to stop working. 

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    August 17, 2020 —
    From structural collapses to fires, the construction industry has experienced a number of high-profile catastrophes over the past decade. These disasters test the mettle of even the most experienced risk professionals and the strongest insurance programs. Issues can arise in all facets of the company’s contracts and insurance policies, and dealing with the aftermath is an extensive and demanding process that can involve many players. As overwhelming as the task may seem, however, it is possible for general contractors to get through the disaster with minimal uncovered exposure if proper steps are taken. By understanding some of the exposures a general contractor faces after a catastrophic loss and implementing key risk transfer strategies from the outset of a project, risk professionals can minimize the impact of a loss on the company in the short and long term. Understanding Possible Risk Exposures When a catastrophic loss occurs, contractors face a wide array of potential exposures. Unfortunately, many large catastrophic losses involve serious bodily injuries and even loss of life. If such a tragedy occurs, the general contractor can reasonably expect to be named in a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Depending on the scope of the project and the area associated with the loss, the catastrophe may also prompt a wide range of bystander claims, from dust inhalation to emotional distress. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    February 07, 2018 —
    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is set to hear argument on February 6 in a case that will decide whether insurers can recoup defense costs if it is later determined that they owed no duty to defend an underlying claim. At issue in Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vibram USA, Inc., No SJC-12401, is Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig O'Neill, White and Williams, LLP
    Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

    Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

    September 05, 2022 —
    Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion. The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com