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


    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

    U.S. Construction Value Flat at End of Summer

    Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims

    7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    Caltrans Reviewing Airspace Program in Aftermath of I-10 Fire

    Second Circuit Certifies Question Impacting "Bellefonte Rule"

    National Coalition to Provide Boost for Building Performance Standards

    Deleted Emails Cost Company $3M in Sanctions

    Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    Details of Sealed Whistleblower Charges Over Cuomo Bridge Bolts Burst Into Public View

    The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada is Just the Beginning

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/26/24) – Construction Growth in Office and Data Center Sectors, Slight Ease in Consumer Price Index and Increased Premiums for Commercial Buildings

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    Catch 22: “If You’re Moving Dirt, You Need to Control Your Dust” (But Don’t Use Potable Water!)

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court

    Building Resiliency: Withstanding Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects

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

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

    Housing Woes Worse in L.A. Than New York, San Francisco

    Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    A New Study on Implementing Digital Visual Management

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

    Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

    The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

    Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

    CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

    Cybersecurity “Flash” Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

    Pensacola Bridge Repair Plan Grows as Inspectors Uncover More Damage

    Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy
    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

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    December 31, 2014 —
    Ah, the age old question, What does my insurance really cover? A federal court in Georgia recently weighed in on this issue in Standard Contractors, Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company, and ruled that a contractor’s commercial general liability insurer did not have to pay for damage caused by a subcontractor. Standard Contractors was hired to renovate the pool on an army base. Standard hired a subcontractor to for design and installation work. The subcontractor’s work was subpar in that the subcontractor omitted a number of parts, installed the wrong parts, and caused more than $400,000 in damage to the pool. Standard submitted a claim to its insurer seeking coverage for the loss under its commercial general liability policy. 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

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    December 15, 2016 —
    An engineering company whose error led to two pedestrian bridge collapses in North Carolina in 2014 that left one worker dead and caused costly damage contends it is being unfairly denied $2 million in potential insurance coverage by its carrier due to what it claims is an “ambiguous” wording of the policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Subcontractor Strikes Out in its Claims Against Federal Government

    July 08, 2024 —
    Is it a good idea for a subcontractor to sue the federal government? A recent case would suggest NO–way too many huge hurdles for the subcontractor to overcome. No matter how creative the arguments may be, it’s a high mountain to climb. In Fox Logistics & Construction Co. v. U.S., 2024 WL 2807677 (Fed.Cl. 2024), a subcontractor sued the federal government when it was not paid by the prime contractor. The subcontractor claimed it was a third-party beneficiary under the government’s modifications to the prime contractor’s payment procedure, or alternatively it had an implied-in-fact contract with the government. The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The subcontractor, while creative, struck out in its claims based on the hurdles in a subcontractor suing the federal government. This case involved upgrading an air force base. The subcontractor performed most of the work. The prime contractor had cash flow problems and did not pay the subcontractor. The government got involved to enforce provisions of its contract to force the prime contractor to pay subcontractors and even modified the payment procedure by having future payments to the prime contractor deposited into a new bank account that government could monitor. This ultimately did not work, and the prime contractor filed for bankruptcy. The subcontractor claimed it was owed millions–apparently, it was not able to recover the money through the prime contractor’s bankruptcy—and pursued claims against the federal government in an effort to recover money it was owed. 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

    Plaintiffs’ Claims in Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company are Likely to Proceed after Initial Hurdle

    January 28, 2019 —
    On December 18, 2018, Federal Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak recommended in a written opinion that the Motion of Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company (“Weyerhaeuser”) to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) be denied. Barry v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 2018WL6589786 (D. Colo. 2018). As such, we believe District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello will accept this recommendation and the lawsuit will proceed. At interest in this lawsuit are TJI joists designed, manufactured, and sold by Weyerhaeuser for residential construction. Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, Weyerhaeuser is one of the world’s largest private owners of timberlands, owning or controlling nearly 12.4 million acres in the United States and managing 14 million acres in Canada. It is a public company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange with revenues of $7.2 billion in 2017.[1] In addition to managing forests, Weyerhaeuser has interests in energy, minerals, and wood products. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Corrective Action Protest Grounds for GSA Schedule Federal Construction Contractors

    September 09, 2024 —
    A contract awarded, protested, terminated, appealed, then reinstated. It’s no secret that federal construction procurements are plagued with uncertainty. From delays, constructive suspensions, compromised supply chains, the litigation-laden critical path method, and the mandate for all construction materials used in federally funded projects for infrastructure to be produced in the United States under the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA) (to name just a few traditional and emerging favorites), just one of these issues could fill the rest of anyone’s month with substantive research. To add one more, which is entirely unique to bid protests, federal contractors–including construction contractors–listed in a General Service Administration (GSA) Schedule may have new grounds to have a contract award reinstated that was terminated by a federal agency pending a GAO decision. GAO Protest An initial GAO protest filed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (Deloitte) argued that the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency (Agency) wrongfully made an award to Kearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney) when the Agency: (1) improperly evaluated quotes; and (2) failed to conduct a proper best-value tradeoff analysis. At issue was a competed task order with Kearney under a GSA FSS multiple-award contract. Before the GAO issued an opinion, however, it held an unrecorded predictive-outcome conference with Deloitte and Kearney where the only mutual consensus was the likely ineligibility of all offerors for the relevant award. The Agency subsequently elected to take corrective action, terminating Kearney’s contract award for convenience, amending the solicitation to avoid issues (including undisputed issues) addressed in the GAO protest. After the Agency adopted their corrective action, the GAO protest was dismissed as academic and moot. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
    Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    November 07, 2012 —
    Concluding the “claims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owners are not claims for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ under a commercial general liability policy,” the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. In the underlying case, Custom Agri Systems, Inc. built a grain bin as a subcontractor to Younglove Construction, LLC. Younglove had been contracted by PSD Development, which withheld payment, claiming it had suffered damages due to defects in Custom Agri System’s work. Younglove filed a complaint against Custom Agri, which filed complaints against its subcontractors. Custom Agri also requested that its insurer, Westfield Insurance Company, defend and indemnify it. Westfield claimed that it had no such duty. The Ohio Supreme Court concurred. The decision notes that “Custom was being sued under two general theories: defective construction and consequential damages resulting from the defective construction.” Westfield argued that none of the claims were “for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence” and therefore none of the claims were covered under the CGL policy.” Further, Westfield argued that “even if the claims were for property damage caused by an occurrence, they were removed from coverage by an exclusion in the policy.” The case was filed in the US District Court which issued a summary judgment for Westfield. The plaintiff appealed and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The court noted that “all of the claims against which Westfield is being asked to defect and indemnify Custom relate to Custom’s work itself.” And so, the court concluded that they “must decide whether Custom’s alleged defective construction of and workmanship on the steel grain bin constitute property damage caused by an ‘occurrence.’” However, the court noted that under the terms of the insurance contract, an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” and the court noted that the “natural and commonly accepted meaning” of “accident” is something “unexpected, as well as unintended.” The Ohio Supreme Court also looked at court decisions in other places, and found that in many similar cases, courts have concluded that construction defects are not occurrences. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Pfeifer argues that “if the defective construction is accidental, it constitutes an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” Justice Pfeifer characterized the majority’s definition of “accidental” as “broad, covering unexpected, unintentional happenings.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    In All Fairness: Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Was Unconscionable and Unenforceable

    August 22, 2022 —
    In Bain v. Airoom, LLC, No. 1-21-001, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 241, the Appellate Court of Illinois (Appellate Court) considered whether the lower court erred in enforcing an arbitration clause in a construction contract between the parties and, as a result, dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Appellate Court found that even if the arbitration clause was enforceable, the appropriate action would have been for the court to stay the lawsuit, as opposed to dismissing the case entirely. The Appellate Court then considered the language of the arbitration clause and found that several provisions were substantively unconscionable, which rendered the entire arbitration clause unenforceable. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court’s decision compelling arbitration and reinstated the plaintiff’s complaint. In 2018, the plaintiff, Ms. Bain, a disabled senior citizen, hired the defendant, Airoom, LLC (Airoom), to renovate her home. Airoom provided its “Cash Sales Contract,” which included a binding arbitration clause. The clause required that any dispute arising or relating to the contract be resolved by binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (AAA), using the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Construction Industry Rules). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    August 27, 2013 —
    Over the last fifty years, the number of lawsuits that have been settled by trial have dropped sharply, according to Kenneth Childs, writing in the Idaho Business Review. Childs notes that in 1962, 11.5% of federal civil cases were resolved at trial, but in 2002, only 1.8 % percent went to trial. He makes the supposition that, due to their complexity, construction defect trials are even less likely to be resolved at trial. Instead, they are being resolved in mandatory arbitration. Views on arbitration have changed over the years and the courts have gone from what he describes as “somewhat hostile to it” to embracing, encouraging, and even mandating it. Childs notes there are some problems to this climate of arbitration. He notes that arbitrators can “operate by their own rules and according to their own standards.” The decisions made by arbitrators “are not subject to appellate review,” which allows arbitrators “to ignore the law entirely.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of