BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting architect expert witnessSeattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction project management 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


    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    Is It Time to Revisit Construction Defects in Kentucky?

    Colorado Governor Polis’s Executive Order D 2020 101: Keeping Up with Colorado’s Shifting Eviction Landscape during COVID-19

    New York Governor Expected to Sign Legislation Greatly Expanding Recoverable Damages in Wrongful Death Actions

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions

    Napa Quake, Flooding Cost $4 Billion in U.S. in August

    Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

    Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

    Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

    Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

    Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision

    Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

    New York’s Highest Court Weighs in on N.Y. Labor Law

    Texas Supreme Court Rules on Contractual Liability Exclusion in Construction Cases

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    When is Mediation Appropriate for Your Construction Case?

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

    Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm

    Sinking S.F. Tower Prompts More Lawsuits

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    Construction Mezzanine Financing

    Repairs Could Destroy Evidence in Construction Defect Suit

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

    Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

    Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium

    Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado
    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

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    September 24, 2014 —
    Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP

    Appraisers May Determine Causation

    January 21, 2015 —
    In a case of first impression, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that an appraisal may determine issues of causation. North Glenn Homeowners Association v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 854 N.W. 2d 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). On July 15, 2009, North Glenn Homeowners Association submitted a claim to State Farm for hail damage on the roof. The claim was paid. North Glenn did not repair all of the damage, instead deciding to use some of the money to make other repairs to the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    May 03, 2017 —
    In McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (4/18/2017 – No. G053623), the Fourth Appellate District, in a 2-1 decision, considered two distinct issues: 1. Whether the attorney-client privilege for a confidential e-mail communication between a client and his attorney had been waived by the client’s inadvertent disclosure of the communication to a third party; and 2. Whether the opposing counsel’s failure to respect the claimed privilege as to the inadvertently produced document or to follow the rules for handling such documents set forth in State Compensation Ins. Fund v WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (State Fund) supported the trial court’s disqualification of counsel and his law firm. This case arose from an intra-family dispute over the deceased matriarch’s substantial investment holdings, a related probate matter, and two subsequent legal malpractice actions. The opinion sets forth in great detail the facts surrounding the claimed inadvertent disclosure by the client (i.e., the privilege holder) of the subject attorney-client e-mail communication, its subsequent dissemination to, and use by, the client’s family members, the ultimate receipt and review by an opposing family member’s counsel, the efforts by the client’s counsel to assert the privilege and “claw-back” the document, and in the face of this privilege claim, the opposing counsel’s extensive use of the document during discovery, including depositions, in the legal malpractice actions. The opposing counsel, who had received the subject document from his own client, had independently concluded that the clearly privileged document lost its privileged status, believing that the privilege had been waived either because of disclosure to third parties or that his obligation to return inadvertently disclosed documents only applied to those produced in litigation during discovery. As a result, the opposing counsel refused all demands for the return or destruction of the document and insisted upon continuing to use it. This dispute finally came to a head over two years after the client’s disclosure in the context of the client’s motion for a judicial determination that the document was privileged (which the trial court granted) and then a motion to disqualify the opposing counsel (which the trial court also granted); both decisions were eventually reviewed by the appellate court. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com 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

    How the Science of Infection Can Make Cities Stronger

    November 13, 2023 —
    Earlier this year, a group of European researchers published a study with a scorching conclusion: As climate change makes heat waves more prevalent across the continent, the city most vulnerable to excess heat deaths is not a warm southern metropolis, but the relatively cool city of Paris. Why? In part, the reason is that historically hotter cities have developed adaptations for dealing with extreme heat, from the shady architecture of Palermo to the siestas of Madrid. That leaves Paris at the bottom of a deadly learning curve. This is just one urgent example of why cities need to talk. The world has an incredible stockpile of effective urban policies, but the best ideas are not being adopted quickly or widely enough. Covid-19 taught us all how to slow the spread of viruses: wear masks, avoid large gatherings and take vaccines. To speed the spread of good ideas, we need to take the opposite tack by making urban solutions go viral. Reprinted courtesy of Carlo Ratti, Bloomberg and Michael Baick, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    January 21, 2015 —
    According to Aldo Svaldi of The Denver Post, condo development has increased in the Denver metro area, though builders stated they are carefully documenting each step of construction as well as vetting contractors and materials. "We are being ultra-careful about everything," Roy Kline, a managing director at Western Development Group, told the Denver Post. Western Development is behind the 250 Columbine development. Svaldi reported that Western Development Group has been “photographing or filming every step of construction.” Brian Levitt and Trevor Hines of NAVA Real Estate Development “have spent the past year crafting a detailed three-page, 18-point action plan to deal with any contingency they could think of arising from the state's constructions-defects law.” Levitt told Svaldi that he “estimates all the safeguards being put in place will add 5 percent to 10 percent to the costs of the units at NAVA Sloan Lake, whose final price points are being determined.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

    June 30, 2011 —

    The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.

    The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.

    Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”

    On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.

    Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

    October 18, 2021 —
    In today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year. Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons. Reprinted courtesy of Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Neeley may be contacted at steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com