BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington contractor expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestrationSeattle Washington testifying construction 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


    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Lewis Brisbois Listed on Leopard Solutions Top 10 Law Firm Index

    Court of Appeal Holds That Higher-Tiered Party on Construction Project Can be Held Liable for Intentional Interference with Contract

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

    NYC Landlord Accused of Skirting Law With Rent-Free Months Offer

    There Was No Housing Bubble in 2008 and There Isn’t One Now

    Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Insurers' Motion to Void Coverage for Failure to Attend EUO Denied

    Fire Raging North of Los Angeles Is Getting Fuel From Dry Winds

    A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    With Vice President's Tie-Breaker, US Senate Approves Far-Reaching Climate Bill

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates

    Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

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

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    Insurer Not Required to Show Prejudice from an Insured’s Late Notice When the Parties Contract for a Specific Reporting Period

    This Company Wants to Cut Emissions to Zero in the Dirty Cement Business

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Florida Courts Inundated by Wave of New Lawsuits as Sweeping Tort Reform Appears Imminent

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components

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

    Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    Taking Service Network Planning to the Next Level

    Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Construction Defect Headaches Can Be Avoided
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Seattle's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    December 21, 2020 —
    The global COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world forever, disrupting many industries, as well as creating unprecedented challenges that threaten many businesses. The construction industry is no different. Projects throughout the country have been adversely affected by unplanned work stoppages, delays, disruptions to the supply chain, price escalations and other unanticipated events. It is critical that owners, developers, contractors and suppliers learn from their experiences over the past year and account for the COVID-19 pandemic when drafting and negotiating contracts for their projects. First and foremost, parties should clearly define their rights and responsibilities to properly manage risks due to COVID-19 and its impacts. COVID-19 and other key related terms should be defined, relying on the CDC and state governments for guidance, to eliminate any uncertainties. The contract should also identify executive orders, guidelines and regulations that have been issued concerning COVID-19 by states, municipalities and other authorities that have jurisdiction where the project is located. Reprinted courtesy of Frederick E. Hedberg, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

    November 01, 2021 —
    It happens every year. A clearly covered loss occurs and for one reason or another, the policyholder delays in notifying its insurer of the loss. Usually, the cause for the delay is innocent. It may even appear to be justified, such as where the insured prioritizes steps to save its property, inventory or assist dependent customers. But no matter the reason, insurers can be hard-lined in their refusal to accept an untimely claim. This is especially true in states that presume prejudice to the insurer, or where the insurer need not show prejudice at all. In LMP Holdings, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., (Case No. 20-24099-CIV) (S.D. Fla.), a twenty‑seven month delay in notifying the insurer of damage from Hurricane Irma proved fatal to the claim. LMP owns a building in Miami, Florida insured under an all-risk commercial property policy issued by Scottsdale. On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck South Florida and caused extensive damage to LMP’s building, including punctures to the roof and water damage. LMP identified the damage shortly after the storm. Then, in 2018, LMP identified other storm-caused damage, including a water stain on the ceiling. It again identified additional storm damage in 2019. LMP submitted a claim to its insurer on December 10, 2019—about twenty-seven months after it first noticed the damage. Scottsdale agreed to inspect the property but reserved its rights to deny coverage based on late notice. On July 10, 2020, Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

    October 02, 2015 —
    The world’s largest economy expanded more than previously forecast in the second quarter, boosted by gains in consumer spending and construction that may help the U.S. withstand a global slowdown. Gross domestic product rose at a 3.9 percent annualized rate, compared with a prior estimate of 3.7 percent, Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. The median forecast of 76 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 3.7 percent gain. Strong hiring, cheaper gasoline and higher home prices will probably sustain household purchases, which account for about 70 percent of the economy. That helps bolster Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s view that the U.S. will overcome any fallout from cooling overseas markets and swings in global financial and commodity markets. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg

    So You Want to Arbitrate? Better Make Sure Your Contract Covers All Bases

    August 16, 2021 —
    As a General Contractor, you may prefer to arbitrate any contractual disputes rather than engage in protracted litigation. Many Courts favor arbitration clauses and will enforce them if there is a sufficient reason to do so. However, there are several issues that a General Contractor should consider when including an arbitration clause in its construction agreement with its client. When an arbitration clause is not properly crafted, questions can arise as to who must arbitrate? Who decides whether to arbitrate? Who selects the arbitrator? What will the subject matter of the arbitration be? A look at a recent case in Pennsylvania highlights the need for properly crafted arbitration clauses. A Recent Case Highlights The Importance Of Arbitration Clauses In TEC Construction, LLC v. Greg Rich and Lora Rich filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, TEC Construction, LLC (“TEC”) and Greg and Lora Rich (the “Riches”), entered into a Construction Agreement with an arbitration clause. Specifically, the parties to the Construction Agreement, TEC and the Riches, agreed to arbitrate any disputes with the American Arbitration Association. Five subcontractors completed the work under the Construction Agreement but none of the subcontractors agreed to arbitrate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Nolan Deviney, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
    Ms. Deviney may be contacted at sdeviney@foxrothschild.com

    Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

    June 18, 2014 —
    In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    MBS’s $500 Billion Desert Dream Just Keeps Getting Weirder

    August 29, 2022 —
    One day last September, a curious email arrived in Chris Hables Gray’s inbox. An author and self-described anarchist, feminist, and revolutionary, Gray fits right into Santa Cruz, Calif., where he lives. He’s written extensively about genetic engineering and the inevitable rise of cyborgs, attending protests in between for causes such as Black Lives Matter. While Gray had taken some consulting gigs over the years, he’d never received an offer like this one. The first shock was the money: significantly more than he’d earned from all but one of his books. The second was the task: researching the aesthetics of seminal works of science fiction such as Blade Runner. The biggest surprise, however, was the ultimate client: Mohammed bin Salman, the 36-year-old crown prince of Saudi Arabia. MBS, as he’s known abroad, was in the early stages of one of the largest and most difficult construction projects in history, which involves turning an expanse of desert the size of Belgium into a high-tech city-region called Neom. Starting with a budget of $500 billion, MBS bills Neom as a showpiece that will transform Saudi Arabia’s economy and serve as a testbed for technologies that could revolutionize daily life. And as Gray’s proposed assignment suggested, the crown prince’s vision bears little resemblance to the cities of today. Intrigued, Gray took the job. “If I can be honest with how I see the world, I’ll pretty much put my work out to anyone,” he says. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Vivian Nereim, Bloomberg

    Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

    July 02, 2018 —
    Parties involved in a dispute may face a choice between arbitration and litigation. Previous articles in this series have discussed various factors that can influence that choice. One generally perceived advantage of arbitration is finality. But how final and binding is an arbitration award? The answer is governed primarily by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act
      The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is a statute enacted in 1925 which provides the basic legal principles applicable to arbitration in the United States. At its core is the following principle—arbitration agreements involving interstate or foreign commerce (which includes virtually all construction contracts in the United States) must be considered:
    • Valid
    • Irrevocable; and
    • Enforceable, except on legal or equitable grounds for the revocation of a contract.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeanne M. Harrison, Smith Currie
    Ms. Harrison may be contacted at jmharrison@smithcurrie.com

    Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States

    January 03, 2022 —
    Tampa, Fla. (December 16, 2021) - As has been widely publicized, the Biden Administration has attempted to impose various forms of vaccine mandates under a variety laws and programs. At the same time, we have seen a flurry of opposition to these efforts ranging from new state laws (for example, in Florida) to court challenges seeking to enjoin the effort. One of the federal mandates was issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and is applicable to staff at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified healthcare providers. Initially, fourteen states sued in opposition to the CMS mandate and were able to obtain a nationwide injunction issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana. That injunction was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has now issued a decision that awards points to both sides. The Fifth Circuit ruled the injunction only applies to the 14 states that participated in the Louisiana lawsuit and not nationwide. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. This opinion has the potential to revive the CMS vaccine mandate in just over half of U.S. states. We can anticipate new suits will be filed as to other states, with the outcome still uncertain. It is unknown at this point whether the United States Supreme Court will agree to review the issues when such review is sought in the near future. Reprinted courtesy of David S. Harvey, Jr., Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Harvey may be contacted at David.Harvey@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of