BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington architecture 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


    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/20/24) – Construction Backlog Falls, National Association of Realtors Settle Litigation, and Commercial Real Estate Market’s Effect on City Cuts

    Professional Malpractice Statute of Limitations in Construction Context

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office

    Cold Stress Safety and Protection

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2017

    Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

    $1.9 Trillion Stimulus: Five Things Employers Need to Know

    Yes, Virginia, Contract Terms Do Matter: Financing Term Offers Owner an Escape Hatch

    Don’t Fall in Trap of Buying the Cheapest Insurance Policy as it May be Bad for Your Business Risks and Needs

    Three's a Trend: Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits Uphold Broad "Related Claims" Language

    Ambush Elections are Here—Are You Ready?

    The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers!

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

    Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Heat Exposure Safety and Risk Factors

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

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    White and Williams Announces Partner and Counsel Promotions

    Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    Estimate Tops $5.5B for Cost of Rebuilding After Maui Fires

    Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    Hunton Andrews Kurth Promotes Insurance Recovery Lawyer Andrea (Andi) DeField to Partner

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    Environmental Regulatory Provisions Embedded in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

    Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens
    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

    Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document

    August 29, 2018 —
    Most construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Todd M. Heffner, Smith Currie
    Mr. Heffner may be contacted at tmheffner@smithcurrie.com

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    January 07, 2015 —
    In Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.” Reprinted courtesy of Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    November 18, 2011 —

    The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

    Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

    Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

    After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

    Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

    Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    January 13, 2020 —
    News that House Democrats and the Trump administration have come to an agreement on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) provided a bit of calm in the storm over trade policies that have roiled the construction market since 2017. Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update Coverage for Construction Defect Claims in Colorado

    February 11, 2013 —
    Whether construction defect claims against an insured contractor or subcontractor are covered is undergoing an intense debate in Colorado that is reminiscent of the current coverage battle in Hawaii. Although I missed the case until recently, the decision in Colo. Pool Sys. v. Scottsdale Ins Co., 2012 Colo. App. LEXIS 1732 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2012), appears to divert from a prior case from the Colorado Court of Appeals, Gen. Sec. Indem. Co. v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009). Gen. Security held that faulty workmanship, standing alone, was not an "accident." Gen. Security was heavily relied upon by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals when it found construction defects arose from breach of contract and were not covered under a liability policy. See Group Builders v. Admiral Insurance Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). In Colo. Pool Sys., Colorado Pool hired subcontractors to construct a poll's concrete shell. After the shell was poured, an inspection noticed that some re-bar was too close to the surface. The owner turned to its general contractor, White Construction Group, and demanded that the pool be removed and replaced. White turned to Colorado Pool, who notified its carrier, Scottsdale. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The Burden of Betterment

    February 23, 2017 —
    The concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability. In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at ryan.charlson@csklegal.com

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

    February 18, 2015 —
    In Colorado it is well recognized that an insurer has a broad duty to defend its policyholder against pending claims. An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the underlying complaint against the insured alleges any set of facts that might fall within the coverage policy. Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance, Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Even if the insurer’s duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings filed against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the claim is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage. Id. If there is any doubt as to whether a theory of recovery falls within the policy coverage, such doubt is decided in favor of the insured and the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered. Id. In order to avoid this duty to defend, an insurer must show that an exemption to the policy applies and that no other basis exists for coverage under the policy. In Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2014 WL 321335 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2015), the Court was to determine whether Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) had a duty to defend a lawsuit filed against its insured, Cornella Brothers, Inc. (“Cornella”). The underlying lawsuit alleged construction defects at a recharging facility. Upon being named a party to the underlying litigation, Cornella provided notice to Liberty Mutual and demanded that Liberty Mutual defend Cornella. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com

    See the Stories That Drew the Most Readers to ENR.com in 2023

    January 16, 2024 —
    As construction's very busy and eventful year nears its close and the sector awaits many more ups and downs in 2024, ENR offers a look back at the Top 20 news stories that most caught readers' attention across a broad market spectrum—from the construction start of the long-awaited $16 billion New York-New Jersey rail tunnel rebuild and winners shortlisted for the first $7 billion in U.S. government funds for developing clean-energy hydrogen hubs to the still unfolding legal battle over Las Vegas Sphere project complexities and why a Texas jury awarded $860 million in a fatal Texas crane collapse verdict. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of