BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington testifying construction expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington defective construction expert
    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


    2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

    English v. RKK. . . The Rest of the Story

    California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Can a Non-Signatory Invoke an Arbitration Provision?

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    Florida Enacts Sweeping Tort Reform Legislation, Raising Barriers to Insurance Coverage Claims

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    Picketing Threats

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    Recording a Lis Pendens Is Crucial

    Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

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

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional

    Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Revolutionizing Buildings with Hybrid Energy Systems and Demand Response

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    “You’re Out of Here!” -- CERCLA (Superfund) Federal Preemption of State Environmental Claims in State Courts

    ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

    Progress, Property, and Privacy: Discussing Human-Led Infrastructure with Jeff Schumacher

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    Will The New U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal Calm Industry Jitters?

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    From the Ashes: Reconstructing After the Maui Wildfire

    National Infrastructure Leaders Visit Dallas' Able Pump Station to Tout Benefits of Water Infrastructure Investment

    Three Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine
    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

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

    September 20, 2021 —
    Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    April 13, 2017 —
    OSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years. On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations. What Does This Mean for California Employers? California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months. Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection. Looking to the Future Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

    Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

    December 05, 2022 —
    After a historical snowfall event in the Buffalo area this past week, residents weren’t just taking to the driveways and sidewalks to clear snow. In the Buffalo suburb of Orchard Park, New York (home to the NFL’s Buffalo Bills), the 80 inches of snow that accumulated was also cleared off local roofs in order to prevent a major danger to homes. Snow as deep and heavy as the recent lake-effect snowstorm can cause roofs to collapse, threatening the lives of people who live inside. An unfortunate scenario befell Buffalo in November 2014, when a 6-foot snow event known as “Snowvember” led to emergency calls for numerous collapsed roofs around the region. One Orchard Park business, Graffiti Grafix & Signs, had its roof collapse in 2014 and had about a third of the roof come down once again this past week, according to The Buffalo News. Orchard Park Police Chief Patrick Fitzgerald noted in an email that three commercial properties in Orchard Park, including Graffiti Grafix & Signs, suffered damage from roof collapse. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of AccuWeather

    Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed

    May 03, 2011 —

    North Carolina may become the twelfth state to require a Certificate of Merit to sue an architect or engineer. If North Carolina Senate Bill 435 (SB435) passes, then plaintiffs when filing a complaint will need to also attach an affidavit of a third-party licensed professional engineer or architect stating that the case has merit.

    SB435 is a short two pages in its current form. The bill states that the “third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall (i) be competent to testify and hold the same professional license and practice in the same area of practice as the defendant design professional and (ii) offer testimony based upon knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, and practice. The affidavit shall specifically state for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the design professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim. The third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall be licensed in this State and actively engaged in the practice of engineering or architecture respectively.”

    A few of the amendments allude to disciplining design professionals who certify civil actions that are without merit. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary I.

    While North Carolina is considering enacting a Certificate of Merit law, eleven other states already require one, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Christopher D. Montez, a partner with Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP, has written a useful summary for each state’s certificate of merit scheme.

    Read the text of SB435

    Track the progress of SB435

    Read more from Christopher D. Montez’s article on Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP site

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

    What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry

    July 05, 2021 —
    This past Wednesday, Governor Newsom announced that California would reopen after being in lockdown for over a year due to COVID-19. Gone is Governor’s Stay at Home Executive Order. Gone is California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy. And gone is the state’s somewhat confusing four-tier, yellow (minimal), orange (moderate), red (substantial) and purple (widespread), risk-level mapping system. So what does this mean for the construction industry? Well it’s not quite business back to usual. CalOSHA’s Standards Board voted this past Thursday to pass revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“Revised Standards”). That same day, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-09-21 implementing the Revised Standards immediately while they are being reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    November 06, 2013 —
    Pennsylvania may soon change how it adopts changes to its implementation of the Uniform Construction Code, but it’s not clear which method will be adopted, as the Pennsylvania House and Senate have competing bills. In the Senate bill (SB1023), the only change would be that any changes to the Uniform Building Code made by the International Code Council would automatically become part of the Pennsylvania building code, unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania UCC Review and Advisory Council. Under current Pennsylvania law, changes are adopted only with a two-thirds approval of the RAC. The House bill (HB1209), separates the commercial code from the residential code. Under the House proposal, the RAC would reject changes to the commercial building code on a two-thirds vote, otherwise they would be adopted, but in the residential building code, changes would be rejected unless the RAC approved them by a two-thirds vote. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits

    October 20, 2016 —
    What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements? Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement. In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s. That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    July 28, 2018 —
    Unlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.
    • On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule. The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of