BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington contractor expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington civil 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


    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Collapse Claim Dismissed

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    Montana Significantly Revises Its Product Liability Laws

    An Interesting Look at Mechanic’s Lien Priority and Necessary Parties

    Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

    The Creation of San Fransokyo

    Disruption: When Did It Start and Where Will It End?

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

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

    Andrea DeField Recognized In 2024 List of Influential Business Women By South Florida Business Journal

    Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage

    Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Finding of Bad Faith, Award of Costs and Prejudgment Interest

    Federal Courts Keep Chipping Away at the CDC Eviction Moratorium

    Another Reminder that Contracts are Powerful in Virginia

    Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard

    Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

    Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price

    Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

    Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

    Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    Insurer Rejects Claim on Dolphin Towers

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Recent Decision Further Jeopardizes Availability of Additional Insured Coverage in New York

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems

    Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    The Fifth Circuit, Applying Texas Law, Strikes Down Auto Exclusion

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

    No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    Reasons to Be Skeptical About a Millennial Homebuying Boom in 2016

    Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

    Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned
    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

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    December 16, 2019 —
    The construction industry added 14,000 net new jobs in August, according to an Associated Builders and Contractors analysis of data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. On a year-over-year basis, industry employment has expanded by 177,000 jobs, or 2.4%. Nonresidential construction employment increased by 11,600 net jobs in August and is up by 114,200 net jobs over the last 12 months, translating into 2.5% growth. The majority of job gains emerged from nonresidential specialty trade contractors, which added 5,400 jobs last month and nearly 103,000 positions over the past year. Heavy and civil engineering added 4,400 net new jobs, while nonresidential building added 1,800 jobs on a monthly basis. The construction unemployment rate stood at 3.6% in August, up 0.2 percentage points from the same time last year. Unemployment across all industries stood at 3.7% in August, unchanged from the previous month. “While job growth across all industries fell short of projections, today’s employment report was just about perfect,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “Yes, employment growth has been softening for quite some time, with average monthly job growth totaling 150,000 during the last six months after approaching 200,000 during the prior six-month period. And employment growth estimates were also revised lower for both June and July. That said, looking beyond the headline number, August’s labor market performance was more than respectable, even accounting for about 25,000 of the jobs being added for temporary Census work. Reprinted courtesy of ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    April 10, 2019 —
    As all insurance coverage attorneys know, how courts interpret certain words and phrases in insurance policies is significant since one word can make the difference between a claim being covered or not. On January 28, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in the Ferro v. Weiner1 decision, clarified the jurisprudence on the meaning of “living in the same household” in the context of homeowners policies. Background Facts Ms. Enid Weiner owned a lakeside home which was insured under a homeowners policy through Intact Insurance Company (the “Intact Policy”). The Policy listed only Enid Weiner as the Named Insured, but provided coverage to her relatives “while living in the same household” for liability for unintentional bodily injury arising from an insured’s “personal actions anywhere in the world.” Although the lake house was used as a vacation home when Ms. Weiner’s children were small, it was her primary residence for about ten years before she moved into a nursing home. While she never permanently moved back, her three grown children and their families used the house as a cottage, with Enid occasionally accompanying them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    March 30, 2016 —
    It was the Age of Aquarius. And everything was changing. Politically, socially . . . and legally. Through the 19th Century the doctrine of caveat emptor, literally “let the buyer beware,” was the rule of law. Under the doctrine a buyer was expected to protect him or herself against both obvious and hidden defects in a product. It wasn’t until the late 1800s that U.S. courts began to impose implied warranties – for merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose – to protect consumers. But implied warranties were premised on their being a contract between the manufacturer and the user of a defective product, and by the mid 20th Century it was increasingly uncommon for consumers to purchase products directly from a manufacturer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Professor Senet’s List of 25 Decisions Every California Construction Lawyer Should Know:

    January 17, 2022 —
    1. Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627 – economic loss rule
    2. Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks ( (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 228 – abandonment does not apply to public works – total cost theory is allowed
    3. Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 568 – architect liable in absence of privity
    4. Cates Const., Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28 – no tort recovery on bonds – performance bonds can cover contract warranties
    5. Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 1384 – liability for concealed conditions
    6. Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 803 – mechanic lien remedy is constitutional
    7. Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 541 – indemnity implies obligation to defend [now limited to commercial contracts under CCP 2782 (c)–(h)]
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ted Senet, Gibbs Gidden
    Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    November 13, 2013 —
    Engineers have yet to determine why a blade on a wind turbine broke at a wind power plant in Michigan, but as part of their investigation they are halting work on the final 10 turbines. The already completed 60 turbines have been taken out of operation. As a result, the Echo Wind Park is no longer generating power. Scott Simons, a spokesperson for the project, said “we’re not going to put anyone or anything at risk until we get to the bottom of this.” However, Dennis Buda, the project manager, attributed the broken blade to a manufacturing defect. Construction was planned to end in November. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    July 23, 2014 —
    According to Willits News, slow-moving trucks with cameras attached rolled through Fort Briggs, attracting attention from homeowners in the community. People began mentioning the trucks on social media sites, with questions regarding what the cameras on the trucks were recording. Osmose Utilities General Manager, Jason Milligan, told Willits News that the trucks were “surveying overhead power poles and lines for PG&E.” "We're not looking for anything but what's overhead," Mulligan said, according to Willits News. "We find defects or issues with construction ... 20 or 30 feet off the ground, which are safety issues. We don't scan anything down towards people's homes." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Res Judicata Not Apply to Bar Overlapping Damages in Separate Suits Against Contractor and Subcontractor

    November 06, 2023 —
    Can the doctrine of res judicata bar an owner’s claim against the general contractor after the owner also sued and obtained a satisfied judgment against the subcontractor when there are identical, overlapping damages pursued in separate lawsuits. A recent case says, not really. In Pickell v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D2037a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), a homeowner sued a homebuilder and the homebuilder’s mechanical subcontractor in separate lawsuits. The claims and damages asserted in the separate lawsuits were substantially identical. The homeowner obtained a judgment against the mechanical subcontractor which was satisfied (i.e., paid). The homebuilder tried to use this as a get-out-jail-free card and claimed the homeowner was barred from suing it under the doctrine of res judicata based on overlapping claims and damages.
    “To successfully assert a defense of res judicata, a party must prove four “identities”: “(1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.” Pickell, supra (citation omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    December 30, 2015 —
    In his article, “Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered,” attorney Tred R. Eyerly analyzed the Am. Home Assur. Co. case that involved a dispute between a developer and a subcontractor over fractured tiles: “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first found that the fracturing of the stone floor tiles caused by the subcontractor's defective installation was the result of an 'occurrence.' There was no evidence that the subcontractor knew that its tile installation work was defective before the tiles fractured. Instead, the fracturing was an unexpected consequence of the defective installation.” Everly continues, “But there was no ‘property damage.’ For the subcontractor to prevail, the defective installation work had to be considered separate and distinct from the physical manifestation of the defective work. Under California law, coverage resulted from construction defects that involved physical injuries to other parts of the construction project.” Everly concludes, “Because there was no genuine issues of material fact as to the potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of