BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness consultantSeattle Washington construction defect 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


    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

    Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

    Thank You for 14 Consecutive Years of Legal Elite Elections

    City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

    Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    Managing Partner Jeff Dennis Recognized as One of the Most Influential Business People & Opinion Shapers in Orange County

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Dorian Lashes East Canada, Then Weakens Heading Out to Sea

    Evaluating Smart Home Technology: It’s About More Than the Bottom Line

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    A Brief Primer on Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien When the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    History and Gentrification Clash in a Gilded Age Resort

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

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

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib

    Disputes Will Not Be Subject to Arbitration Provision If There Is No “Significant Relationship”

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Digitalizing the Construction Site – Interview with Tenderfield’s Jason Kamha

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    Pennsylvania Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Nobody Knows What Lies Beneath New York City

    Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

    Singapore Unveils Changes to Make Public Housing More Affordable

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?
    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

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    February 18, 2019 —
    The spectrum of technology available to today’s contractors is wide and deep. This techno-ecosystem will change just about every operational tick and tock needed to build world-class projects—from where and how people work to what equipment they use and how they record payments. “Generally speaking, the use of technology in construction is surging, particularly in the past three to five years,” says Chris Amato, principal and national advisory leader for the Chicago-based management consultancy Grant Thornton. “It’s becoming the cost of doing business; every player, at some point or another, is going to need to embrace it to some degree. The key questions are where to start, where to invest and how to minimize risk.” Reprinted courtesy of Jim Romeo, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Fixing That Mistake

    October 25, 2021 —
    Someone once said, more people could learn from their mistakes if they weren’t so busy denying that they made them in the first place. In the construction industry, mistakes are not uncommon. Addressing them, however, can be complicated. What should a contractor do when the project owner says some aspect of the project is not satisfactorily completed or isn’t performing as it should? Should the contractor wait, hoping it may get resolved without having to do anything? Or should the contractor take on the repair or replacement as soon as practically possible? Doing nothing may be easy but can expose the contractor to significant subsequent liability. Dealing with the issue, on the other hand, could result in the destruction of what might later be required evidence in any litigation which develops. Considered “spoliation,” such manipulation or elimination of evidence is a consequence to be avoided. Even though done with the best of intentions to fix a problem, the process can wind up exposing one to liability and damages. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Barthet may be contacted at pbarthet@barthet.com

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    February 05, 2014 —
    The broad asbestos exclusion found in a Business Owners policy barred coverage for the insured after it sold a building in which asbestos was discovered. Phillips v. Parmelee, 2013 Wisc. LEXIS 747 (Dec. 27, 2013). Prior to purchasing an apartment building, the insured had the building inspected. The report indicated that the building's heating supply ducts likely contained asbestos. The insured then sought to sell the building. The Real Estate Condition Report stated the insured was not aware of "asbestos or asbestos-containing materials on the premises." The buyers purchased the property. A contractor cut through asbestos-wrapped ducts, dispersing asbestos throughout the building. The buyers sued the insured for breach of contract/warranty and negligence in failing to adequately disclose defective conditions including asbestos. 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

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    August 24, 2020 —
    In prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed. Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    'Right to Repair' and Fixing Equipment in a Digital Age

    August 30, 2021 —
    When a piece of equipment breaks down on site, rental agreements, subcontractor contracts and other arrangements generally make it clear who gets to open the hood and start tinkering. But heavy equipment made in the last two decades increasingly relies on digital components for many basic functions. Embedded computer systems oversee electronically controlled hydraulics and regulate engine behavior and emissions-control systems. The tools to access these firmware and software systems are not always easy to come by, and in some cases repairs can’t be done without working directly with a manufacturer-approved dealer or technician. Some repairs may require a digital handshake to take effect. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

    December 11, 2023 —
    If you need more of a reason to have contracts with clear and definite terms, this case is it. This case exemplifies what can happen if the contract, not only does not have clear and definite terms, but contains a patent ambiguity. The contract will be deemed unenforceable which will make one of the contracting parties very unhappy! In Bowein v. Sherman, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D2208a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), the buyer and seller entered into a real estate transaction. The transaction was for $2 Million. The purchase-and-sale agreement included the address and legal description of a parcel to be sold. However, there was a section in the agreement called “Other Terms and Conditions” which identified that the offer was actually for four properties that were being sold by the seller. When it came to closing time, the seller refused to close because the seller disputed that the $2 Million purchase price was for all four of his properties. The buyer sued the seller for specific performance to force the sale which the trial court agreed in favor of the buyer. However, the appellate court did not. First, the appellate court held that “[t]he equitable remedy of specific performance may be granted only where the parties have actually entered into a definite and certain agreement.” Bowein, supra (quotation and 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

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    September 17, 2015 —
    Perhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement. Some Background BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI. Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant

    August 07, 2023 —
    Can a negligence argument be created against consulting design professionals or entities that are involved in the inspection of a trade’s work? The recent opinion in Bautech USA, Inc. v. Resolve Equipment, Inc., 2023 WL 4186395 (S.D.Fla. 2023) contains an interesting fact pattern that touches upon this issue. While the case dealt with a motion to dismiss, it contains a number of issues that may be discussed in follow-up postings. Here, a prime contractor was hired by Broward County, Florida to install offshore reef mitigation units. The contractor entered into a subcontract with a concrete fabricator to fabricate the reef mitigation units. The contractor also separately hired consultants to inspect the units. The contractor and its consultants rejected the units even after the fabricator implemented design revisions. The fabricator was then terminated and not paid for contract work plus revisions it implemented to finished units. The fabricator sued the contractor and the contractor’s consultants for non-payment under many (ten) different theories of liability claiming it was damaged to the tune of millions of dollars. 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