BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington ada design expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington construction defect 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


    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    The CA Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review of McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.) As to Whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the Exclusive Remedy for All Defect Claims Arising Out of New Residential Construction

    AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

    Nondelegable Duties

    The Multigenerational Housing Trend

    Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight’s Melvin Marcia for Its 2023 Northern California Rising Stars List

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    Progress, Property, and Privacy: Discussing Human-Led Infrastructure with Jeff Schumacher

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

    Smart Construction and the Future of the Construction Industry

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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

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

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    At Least 46 Killed in Taiwanese Apartment Building Inferno

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    Tick Tock: Don’t Let the Statute of Repose or Limitations Time Periods Run on Your Construction Claims

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One

    Tech Focus: Water Tech Getting Smarter

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    Points on Negotiating Construction Claims

    Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

    Lewis Brisbois Appellate Team Scores Major Victory in Bad Faith Insurance Action

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022

    Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

    BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted in a Premises Liability Matter

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    Construction Safety Technologies – Videos

    NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

    Drill Rig Accident Kills Engineering Manager, Injures Operator in Philadelphia

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

    Lithium for Batteries from Geothermal Brine

    Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (2/21/24) – Fed Chair Predicts More Small Bank Closures, Shopping Center Vacancies Hit 15-year Low, and Proptech Sees Mixed Results

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

    Construction Contract Clauses That May or May Not Have Your Vote – Part 3

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies
    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

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    November 18, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals in Stanislaus County has reversed the decision of the lower court in Greg Opinski Construction Inc. v. City of Oakdale. The earlier court had awarded the city of judgment of $54,000 for late completion, $3,266 for repair of construction defects and interest, and $97,775 in attorneys’ fees. The late completion of the project was due to actions by the City of Oakdale, however, the court rejected Opinski’s argument that the California Supreme Court decision in Kiewit did not allow this, as his contract with the city established a procedure for claiming extensions.

    The appeals court noted that the Kiewit decision has been “criticized as an unwarranted interference in the power of contracting parties to shift the risk of delays caused by one party onto the other party by forcing the second party to give the first notice of any intention to claim an extension of time based on delays caused by first.” They cited Sweet, a professor at Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley’s law school, that Kiewit “gutted” the “provision that conditions the contractor’s right to claim an extension of time for delays beyond his control.”

    Further changes in California law in response to the Kiewit decision lead to the current situation which the court characterized as “if the contractor wished to claim it needed an extension of time because of delays caused by the city, the contractor was required to obtain a written change order by mutual consent or submit a claim in writing requesting a formal decision by the engineer.”

    Opinski also argued that the lower court misinterpreted the contract. The Appeals court replied that “Opinski is mistaken.” He cited parts of the contract regarding the increase of time, but the court rejected these, noting that “an inability to agree is not the same as an express rejection.”

    The court also rejects Opinski’s appeal that “the evidence the project was complete earlier than September 30, 2005, is weightier than the evidence to the contrary,” which they describe as “not a winning appellate argument.” The court points out that the role of an appeals court is not to reweigh the evidence, but to determine “whether the record contains substantial evidence in support of the judgment.”

    The court did side with Opinski on one question of the escrow account. They rejected most of his arguments, repeating the line “Opinski is mistaken” several times. They decided that he was mistaken on the timing of the setoff decision and on whether the city was the prevailing party. However, the appeals court did find that Opinski was not liable for interest on the judgment.

    The appeals court rejected the awarding of prejudgment interest to the city as the funds from which the judgment was drawn was held in an escrow account. The court noted that the city had access to the funds and could “access the funds when it determined that Opinski had breached the contract.” The appeals court noted that the judgment exhausted the escrow balance and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the amount own to Opinski.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    August 27, 2013 —
    Having previously decided that construction defect claims did not arise from an occurrence and were consequently not covered under Hawaii law, the Hawaii Federal District Court refused to dismiss the insured's second amended counterclaim alleging various claims for relief. Ill. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Construc., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108932 (D. Haw. July 31, 2013). In earlier proceedings, the court determined that the Nordic's allegedly deficient performance on construction contracts was not an "occurrence." The court also rejected Nordic's argument that the Hawaii legislature's Act 83 required the court to deviate from the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004) or the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals' decision in Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). Admiral now moved for summary judgment on its complaint and for dismissal of Nordic's second amended counterclaim, alleging bad faith and negligent misrepresentation, among other counts. Summary judgment as to the Safeway claim was denied. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    April 13, 2017 —
    Ever wonder what happens if a person challenges the timeliness of a trustee’s sale after the sale already occurred? Waiver of the argument of course! And, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Waltner, the affirmance of an eviction judgment. In the Waltner case, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-PR4 Trust (the “Bank”), purchased a residential property at a trustee’s sale in September 2015. The Bank gave the occupant of the house, Sarah Waltner (“Waltner”), notice to vacate the property, but she did not do so. Accordingly, the Bank filed a summary action to evict Waltner, which the trial court ultimately granted. After the trial court granted the Bank relief, Waltner filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to vacate the eviction judgment arguing, among other things, that the judgment was void because the Bank conducted the trustee’s sale after the statute of limitations expired. Both motions were denied, and Waltner appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Insurance and Your Roof

    November 13, 2013 —
    Those seeking home insurance should look up. Bankrate points out that the type of roof a home has can affect how much it costs to insure it. “The roof is the first layer that wind, hail, wildfire and other hazards really begin to act on,” Tim Reinhold, the chief engineer at the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, told the site. For insurers, the most problematic roof type is probably wood shakes. “Some companies won’t even insure certain roof types, such as wood shakes, in high fire-risk areas,” said Robert Hunter, the director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Not that other roof types are problem-free. Metal roofs can corrode, particularly when two different metals touch. Shingles age more quickly than other roof types, becoming brittle, and they can blow off in high winds. Tile roofs are expensive, something insurers are guaranteed to factor into the insurance rates. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    September 10, 2014 —
    Property Casualty 360 reported that for residents of the flood-prone area of Queens, New York, even “the slightest downpour could mean evacuating their homes for a night or even weeks at a time.” The problem is that “[m]uch of Southeast Queens, an area that includes the neighborhoods of Jamaica, St. Albans and Hollis, and parts of the Rockaways, sits on a massive aquifer that swells with groundwater and spills over into streets and eventually into basements and homes after heavy rains.” However, according to Property Casualty 360, Southeast Queens residents “have been battling insurance agencies for over a decade.” “I would say more than 90% of the homeowners I speak to out here, they’re looking for insurance and they’re not getting it,” Councilman Donovan Richards, who represents Roseland and Far Rockaway, told Property Casualty 360. “Insurance companies obviously don’t want to take the risk.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    2023 Executive Insights From Leaders in Construction Law

    June 12, 2023 —
    If a major project is interrupted or canceled, are there any laws that provide protection for unpaid contractors that have performed work? Angela Richie Partner, Co-Chair, Construction Practice Group Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani With the current volatility and uncertainty in the economy, project interruptions and cancellations are on the rise; hence, you need to take steps now to make sure you have a method to get paid for the work you have performed. For private projects, make sure you have followed the pre-lien notification requirements for the state in which the project is located before you start work, if they are required. Then, be sure to follow the lien notice and lien filing requirements for the state. Each state is different, so you want to be ready with the appropriate documentation in advance of the project interruption or cancellation. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    First Circuit Finds No Coverage For Subcontracted Faulty Work

    December 17, 2024 —
    After almost two years' deliberation, the First Circuit last week issued its long-awaited decision in Admiral Ins. Co. v. Tocci Bldg. Corp.[1]: affirming on other grounds, and leaving in place a district court decision that found subcontracted faulty work was not an "occurrence" and did not lead to covered “property damage” under Massachusetts law. The decision leaves Massachusetts among a number of states where general contractors should not expect coverage from their commercial general liability (CGL) insurers for damage falling within the contractor’s scope of work. Since the "scope of work" – where general contractors are involved – often encompasses an entire project, contractors who want coverage in Massachusetts should take care to make alternative arrangements: transferring risk to subcontractors through indemnity provisions and additional-insured endorsements, or relying on other policy forms where available. Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and Austin Moody, White and Williams LLP 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

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test. As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com