BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington building code expert witnessSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington testifying construction expert witnessSeattle Washington multi family design expert witnessSeattle Washington construction code 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


    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/29/24) – Megaprojects on the Rise, Agency Guidance for CRE, and an Upbeat Forecast for Commercial Real Estate Investment

    The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

    Construction Reaches Half-Way Point on San Diego's $2.1 Billion Mid-Coast Trolley

    Public Housing Takes Priority in Biden Spending Bill

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

    Newmeyer & Dillion Selected to 2017 OCBJ’s Best Places to Work List

    Detroit Showed What ‘Build Back Better’ Can Look Like

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

    Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

    Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

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

    An Uncharted Frontier: Nevada First State to Prohibit Defense-Within-Limits Provisions

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability

    A Compilation of Quirky Insurance Claims

    Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Federal Regulatory Recap: A Summary of Recent Rulemaking Actions Taken or Proposed Affecting the Energy Industry

    Super Lawyers Recognized Five Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

    Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

    A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

    NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

    Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages

    Affirmed

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 5: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery

    Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    Gene Witkin Celebrates First Anniversary as Member of Ross Hart’s Mediation Team

    Homeowner's Claim for Collapse Survives Summary Judgment

    Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    Untangling Unique Legal Issues in Modern Modular Construction

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    March 27, 2019 —
    Parol or extrinsic evidence can be used to defeat an argument that a lien is a fraudulent lien. And, just because a lien amount exceeds the total contract amount does not presumptively mean the lien is willfully exaggerated or recorded in bad faith. Finally, a ruling invalidating a construction lien can create the irreparable harm required to support a petition for writ of certiorari. All of these issues are important when dealing with and defending against a fraudulent lien and are explained in a recent case involving a dispute between an electrical subcontractor and its supplier. In Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc. v. Coltin Electrical Services, LLC, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D130a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), there were various revisions to the supplier’s initial purchase order, both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective, and a ninth-revised purchaser order was issued and accepted. The electrical subcontractor claimed that deliveries were late, unassembled, and did not include the required marking (likely the UL marking), to pass building inspections. As a result, the subcontractor withheld money from the supplier and the supplier recorded a lien in the amount of $853,773.16 and filed a foreclosure lawsuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    January 07, 2015 —
    Why would a contractor create a contract for illegal work? I really don’t know. Late last year, the FBI announced that a Maryland contractor, Forrester Construction Company, agreed to pay $2.15 million dollars to resolve a criminal investigation into alleged fraud in connection with the use of disadvantaged business enterprises involving more than $145 million of District of Columbia government contracts. 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

    Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

    March 06, 2023 —
    We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers. There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Lane Construction Sues JV Partner Skanska Over Orlando I-4 Project

    February 08, 2021 —
    One of Florida’s most troubled construction projects is now in court, with one partner in a design-build joint venture pitted against another. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    October 28, 2015 —
    The Anglo-Iraqi starchitect Zaha Hadid has designed just two residential buildings in the U.S., one in New York (520 West 28th Street in the Chelsea Gallery District next to the High Line) and one in Miami (One Thousand Museum, next to PAMM and overlooking Biscayne Bay). Both have yet to be completed and both, as it happens, have penthouses priced in the region of $50 million. Two trophy properties by a Pritzker Prize-winning architect and two almost identical price tags? (The Miami penthouse clocks in at a mere $49 million, the New York penthouse an even $50 million.) It’s practically begging for a head-to-head comparison. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    April 20, 2011 —

    The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.

    After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”

    “In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”

    Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:

    [1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.

    [a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.

    [b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.

    [2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.

    [3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.

    [4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.

    In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”

    The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”

    The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.

    The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”

    James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:

    “The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.

    In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”

    The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.

    Read the full story...

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

    Home Prices on the Rise

    September 03, 2015 —
    According to CoreLogic, in July, housing prices rose 6.9% compared to last year, reported Housing Wire. Furthermore, prices increased by 1.7% compared to June 2015. “Home sales continued their brisk rebound in July and home prices reflected that, up 6.9% from a year ago,” Frank Nothaft, chief economist for CoreLogic, told Housing Wire. “Over the same period, the National Association of Realtors reported existing sales up 10% and the Census Bureau reported new home sales up 26% in July.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Avoiding 'E-trouble' in Construction Litigation

    September 10, 2018 —
    During the 2016 presidential election, the FBI subpoenaed Hillary Clinton's emails after she used a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. Separately, the more recent investigation into Donald Trump’s campaign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, resulted in scrutiny over both his email and social media. As shown the above examples, there are damaging effects of electronically stored information in politics, but how does it impact the construction industry? If not used carefully and properly, emails will serve as “truth serum” in court. Attorneys can simply read an email to know employees’ thoughts or actions, meaning an impulsive email or social media post will most likely come back to haunt the company. Requests for ESI are inevitable in litigation today and the production of inappropriate emails and other ESI open the door for an opposing attorney to argue that a company fosters a culture of uncouth, unprofessional and unfocused project management. Reprinted courtesy of Judah Lifschitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Lifschitz may be contacted at lifschitz@slslaw.com