BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural engineering 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


    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    California Contractors: New CSLB Procedure Requires Non-California Corporations to Associate All Officers with Their Contractor’s License

    Final Rule Regarding Project Labor Agreement Requirements for Large-Scale Federal Construction Projects

    Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

    Prefabrication Contract Considerations

    Providing “Labor” Under the Miller Act

    Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case

    First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named for Top-Tier Practice Areas in 2018 U.S. News – Best Law Firms List

    Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

    Wildfire Threats Make Utilities Uninsurable in US West

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael Parme Selected to the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?

    Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

    Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)

    Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    How a 10-Story Wood Building Survived More Than 100 Earthquakes

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    U.S. Home Sellers Return for Spring as Buyers Get Relief

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies

    Unrelated Claims Against Architects Amount to Two Different Claims

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    Fourth Circuit Questions EPA 2020 Clean Water Act 401 Certification Rule Tolling Prohibition

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Avoiding Construction Defect “Nightmares” in Florida

    Mortenson Subcontractor Fires Worker Over Meta Data Center Noose

    There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    General Contractor’s Intentionally False Certifications Bar It From Any Recovery From Owner

    Best Practices for ESI Collection in Construction Litigation

    EEOC Builds on Best Practice Guidance Regarding Harassment Within the Construction Industry

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Beyond the Flow-Down Clause: Subcontract Provisions That Can Expose General Contractors to Increased Liability and Inconsistent Outcomes

    Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”

    Autovol’s Affordable Housing Project with Robotic Automation

    Corps, State Agencies Prep for Flood Risks From California Snowmelt Runoff
    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

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    February 03, 2020 —
    As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
    an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
    The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” 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

    Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?

    July 13, 2017 —
    Recently, I wrote an article on the importance of cyber liability insurance for design professionals. The reality, however, is that this is important insurance for all professionals in today’s day and age. A modern, online insurance broker called Embroker was kind enough to submit a guest post on cyber liability insurance. Check it out!!! According to the Cybersecurity Ventures Report, the cost of cybercrime could reach $6 trillion by 2021. That same report predicts that cybercrime will expand into new sectors, such as the construction industry. Assuming your construction business has moved beyond pencil and paper drawings, paper invoices and mailed checks, this prediction is cause for concern. In fact, it’s already come true, as the 2013 Target cyber breach which led to a $39 million court settlement came through a HVAC contractor, a development which underscores the need for Cyber Liability insurance. Considering the numerous issues facing construction business owners — from budget and time constraints to production methods to fire hazards — Cyber Liability insurance may seem like a low priority. But f you expect to stay in business and be profitable, that’s simply not the case. 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

    Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

    May 13, 2019 —
    The Eleventh Circuit has reversed an insurer’s award of summary judgment after finding that uncertainty about when the alleged property damage occurred raised questions about whether the damage came within the scope of the “Your Work” exclusion. More specifically, the court found unclear whether the damage occurred before or after the contractor abandoned the job, thereby triggering an exception to the “Your Work” exclusion for damage to work that had “not yet been completed or abandoned.” The decision illustrates how timing can be a critical factor when it comes to triggering coverage for work and completed operations. In Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, a pair of trustees hired MAC Contractors (doing business as KJIMS Construction) to serve as the general contractor for a custom residence. After construction began, disputes between the trustees and KJIMS caused the contractor to abandon the job before completing the project. The trustees followed with a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that KJIMS had damaged wood floors and a metal roof, which KJIMS had promised to remediate but never did. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2022 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2022

    September 20, 2021 —
    Three Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2022. Seven Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2022. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

    March 09, 2020 —
    The Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019). In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract. However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.” Reprinted courtesy of Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    January 05, 2017 —
    A performance bond is a valuable tool designed to guarantee the performance of the principal of the contract made part of the bond. But, it is only a valuable tool if the obligee (entity the bond is designed to benefit) understands that it needs to properly trigger the performance bond if it is looking to the bond (surety) to remedy and pay for a contractual default. If the performance bond is not properly triggered and a suit is brought upon the bond then the obligee could be the one materially breaching the terms of the bond. This means the obligee has no recourse under the performance bond. This is a huge downside when the obligee wanted the security of the performance bond, and reimbursed the bond principal for the premium of the bond, in order to address and remediate a default under the underlying contract. A recent example of this downside can be found in the Southern District of Florida’s decision in Arch Ins. Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 2016 WL 7324144 (S.D.Fla. 2016). Here, a general contractor sued a subcontractor’s performance bond surety for an approximate $1M cost overrun associated with the performance of the subcontractor’s subcontract (the contract made part of the subcontractor’s performance bond). The surety moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor failed to property trigger the performance bond and, therefore, materially breached the bond. The trial court granted the summary judgment in favor of the performance bond surety. Why? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    Yet ANOTHER Reason not to Contract without a License

    October 25, 2021 —
    Remember when I stated that you cannot lawfully perform construction work in Virginia without a contractor’s license? Remember when I said that you risk non-payment if you do so? If you needed another reason, a relatively recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision upholding a criminal conviction for performing construction work without a license should be that reason. In Riddel v. Commonwealth, the Court took up an appeal from the conviction of Jeff Riddel where Mr. Riddel was verbally asked by homeowners to inspect and then repair their septic system. Mr. Riddel then contracted with Fairfax Suburban Septic to pump out and repair the system. Mr. Riddel then delivered the homeowners an invoice from Fairfax Suburban Septic and instructed the homeowners to pay Fairfax Suburban Septic directly. After payment, the homeowners became aware that the work was not completed and that neither Mr. Riddel nor his subcontractor was licensed to perform septic work in Virginia. During the trial, Mr. Riddel argued on a Motion to Strike the Commonwealth’s evidence that (1) he merely arranged for licensed contractors to perform the repairs to the septic system, arguing that Virginia Code §§ 54.2-801 to 802 permitted Riddel to arrange the work without a contractor’s license and (2) no written contract to perform a septic inspection or repairs existed. The Circuit Court denied the motion and Mr. Riddel was convicted under Va. Code 54.1-111 for performing the work without a license. Needless to say, he appealed. 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

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    May 05, 2014 —
    The Denver Business Journal reported that the Colorado Senate Appropriations Committee voted 5-2 to kill SB 219, one of the three construction defect bills introduced by Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, D-Commerce City. SB 219 “would have given the divisions of housing, insurance and law a combined $150,000 to collect data that would shine light on the reasons for the current shortage of owner-occupied affordable housing.” However, the two other construction defect related bills are still alive. SB 216 “would offer financial incentives for building condos worth less than $500,000 and SB 220, would make it more difficult for condo owners to file a class-action lawsuit regarding alleged defects.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of