BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington structural concrete expertSeattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting engineersSeattle Washington construction code expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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


    Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Storm Eunice Damage in U.K. Could Top £300 Million

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    Remote Work Issues to Consider in Light of COVID-19

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards

    Flood Insurance Claim Filed in State Court Properly Dismissed

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    Daily Reports – The Swiss Army Knife of Project Documentation

    Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

    New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

    Adaptive Reuse: Creative Reimagining of Former Office Space to Address Differing Demands

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    Construction Leads World Trade Center Area Vulnerable to Flooding

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

    Arizona – New Discovery Rules

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Carwash Prosecutors Seek $1.6 Billion From Brazil Builders

    SB800 CONFIRMED AS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

    Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System

    No Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

    Defense for Additional Insured Not Barred By Sole Negligence Provision

    Construction Costs Up

    Do Not Lose Your Mechanics Lien Right Through a Subordination Agreement

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
    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

    Managing Once-in-a-Generation Construction Problems – Part II

    April 03, 2023 —
    Part I of this series discussed the benefits of construction participants using alternative project delivery methods and properly addressing change order issues, rising costs and payment structure issues to manage construction during these uncertain times. Part II below explores the possibility that higher prices and steady consumer demand could lead to an increase in unscrupulous contractor practices—and how owners can mitigate that risk, managing the challenges posed by the unforeseen labor shortage and turnover in the industry and evolving your construction team for short-term and long-term success. Higher Prices and Steady Demand With the demand for construction projects relatively stable, contractors remaining in high demand and a surge in prices for construction materials and components, owners are under great pressure to accept less favorable construction terms. This has presented unscrupulous contractors with perceived leverage over owners and new opportunities to engage in questionable business practices and fraud. Although some contractors may seek to stretch the boundaries of a construction contract, other contractors are more deliberate. Falsifying payment applications and invoices to inflate labor or materials costs, billing for work not yet performed or materials not yet delivered to the project site and manipulating change orders are examples of illicit and fraudulent practices by contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey S. Wertman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    March 12, 2014 —
    The additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014). Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States. After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy. 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

    Labor Intensive

    May 10, 2022 —
    In 2020, the United States saw a significant decrease in non-fatal workplace injuries, which dropped to 2.1 million from 2.8 million the year before. While the precise extent to which this reduction in workplace injuries is attributable to COVID-19 is unknown, the pandemic was undoubtedly a significant factor. It is also unclear to what extent the pandemic affected the number and rate of workplace incidents in 2021 or might continue to do so in 2022 and beyond. However, it is reasonable to expect that, as pandemic-related restrictions are removed and life returns to normal, the construction industry will revert to pre-pandemic employment levels and beyond. It is also reasonable to conclude that, once that level of recovery is attained, the number and rate of both fatal and non-fatal workplace incidents will increase substantially. Even with the significant reduction in the overall number of workplace injuries in 2020, the United States still saw nearly 8,000 construction workers miss at least one day of work due to an injury sustained on the job, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). And, despite construction accounting for just 6% of jobs, BLS reports that construction-related incidents account for 20% of workplace deaths, or three every day. This one-fifth share of workplace fatalities makes construction the third-deadliest industry in the United States. Reprinted courtesy of Neil Flynn, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Flynn may be contacted at nf@plattalaw.com

    Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

    March 15, 2021 —
    Many subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial courts to act as a “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, giving them the power to exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In Maria Fernanda Elosu and Robert Luis Brace v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, Civil Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2021) (Brace), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho exercised its gatekeeper role when it granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Brace, involved a fire at a vacation cabin in McCall, Idaho. The cabin, owned by Maria Elosu (Elosu) and Robert Brace (Brace and collectively with Elosu, Plaintiffs) was part of a homeowner’s association called Middlefork Ranch, Incorporated (MFR). The cabin had a “wrap around” deck with a propane-fired refrigerator on the north side. On the day before the fire, Brace stained the deck using an oil-based stain. That night, Elosu smoked cigarettes on the deck. The next morning, Plaintiffs used rags to clean up excess oil from the deck and an MFR employee changed the propane on the refrigerator and relit the pilot light. At 4:00 p.m., a fire started in or around the cabin while no one was home. The fire was discovered by a group of contractors who testified that the fire was isolated to the east side of the cabin when they first arrived. Importantly, one witness testified that there was no fire and no flames around the propane-fired refrigerator. The fire destroyed the cabin and the contents within. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

    March 16, 2011 —

    According to a story published last Thursday in Seattle PI: " The 25-story McGuire Apartments, at Second Avenue and Wall Street, would cost more to fix than the building is worth, according to its owners. Its most serious defect involves steel cables that are corroding inside of concrete slabs because the ends weren’t properly treated with a rust-proof coating and a pocket in the edge of the concrete that wasn’t properly sealed"

    The report by Aubrey Cohen outlines the demolition plans which are expected to take between 12 and 18 months, and will utilize robotic Brokk Machines. The demolition plan calls for one story at a time to be demolished, with the debris to be trucked offsite. Demolition plans aim to minimize disruption to residents and businesses in the area by Limiting work 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays with "impact and percussive activities" limited to 8 a.m to 5 p.m weekdays.

    Read More...

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

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    December 04, 2018 —
    The insurer was successful on summary judgment in establishing it correctly denied coverage for collapse, but its motion was denied regarding the insureds' bad faith claim. Jones v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153102 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 7, 2018). The insureds' retaining wall collapsed. They tendered to State Farm under their homeowners policy. An engineer retained by State Farm determined that the wall buckled due to "excessive lateral earth pressure from retained soils behind the wall." The parties agreed that the soil, saturated by water from frequent rain, grew too heavy for the retaining wall to bear, causing the collapse. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

    July 18, 2022 —
    In early June, New York State Legislature passed legislation, often referred to as “The Grieving Families Act” (A.6770/S.74-A), which expands New York’s Wrongful Death Statute. This legislation is pending approval from Governor Kathy Hochul and has the ability to drastically impact wrongful death litigation by expanding how parties can bring an action, as well as expanding on recoverable compensation. Pursuant to the existing statute (EPTL §5-4.1), the statute of limitations requires commencement of an action within two years after the decedent’s death. The proposed Grieving Families Act expands the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action to three years and six months after the decedent’s death. Further, under the existing statute (EPTL §11-3.3), recovery in a wrongful death action is restricted to distributees (the intended beneficiaries under the will). The proposed legislation expands the parties permitted to bring a wrongful death action, replacing the term distributees with surviving close family members. These may include, but are not limited to, spouse or domestic partner, issue, parents, grandparents, step-parents, and siblings, leaving it to the finder of fact to determine which persons are close family members of the decedent based upon the specific circumstances relating to the person’s relationship with decedent. It remains to be seen what the burden of proof will be for the surviving close family members, as well as what process will be instituted with respect to the finder of fact. Presumably, the finder of fact will be a Judge. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bidder Be Thoughtful: The Impacts of Disclaimers in Pre-Bid Reports

    August 04, 2021 —
    When bidding a project, subsurface or latent site conditions that are not immediately apparent can massively impact the costs of performance to general contractors. Were contractors required to bid on projects without any information on pre-existing conditions, they would need either to be assured that any additional costs would be reimbursed by the owner, or to include significant contingencies for subsurface conditions in their bids. For owners, these options result in either increased risk or increased cost—neither of which is particularly palatable. Owners therefore implement several contractual tools to minimize these risks and costs. One of these tools is providing bidders with a report on latent conditions, often called a “geotechnical data report” or “GDR”, but otherwise shifting as much of the subsurface-related risk as possible to the contractor. In theory, these reports permit contractors to appropriately adjust their contingencies for latent conditions, thus saving owners money. However, several independent and thorny issues arise where site reports provided by the owner are either inconsistent with or silent on the actual conditions of a project site. Hence owners often include disclaimers with these reports, such as noting that the report is for “informational purposes only” or that the report is “not part of the contract documents." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com