BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington construction expert witnessesSeattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington testifying construction 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


    Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Rina Clemens Selected as a 2023 Florida Super Lawyers® Rising Star

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

    Daniel Ferhat Receives Two Awards for Service to the Legal Community

    Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

    UK Construction Output Rises Unexpectedly to Strongest Since May

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    Phillips & Jordan Awarded $176M Everglades Restoration Contract

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

    A Court-Side Seat: Appeals and Agency Developments at the Close of 2020

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Construction Termination Issues for the Architect and Engineer: Part 1– Introduction to the Series

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    Effective Allocation of Damages for Federal Contract Claims

    Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

    Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

    He Turned Wall Street Offices Into Homes. Now He Vows to Remake New York

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Meet Your Future Team Members: AI Agents

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    ASCE and Accelerator for America Release Map to Showcase Projects from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

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

    There’s the 5 Second Rule, But Have You Heard of the 5 Year Rule?

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    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

    Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders

    Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act

    Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    CC&Rs Not the Place for Arbitration Agreement, Court Rules

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants

    The New Industrial Revolution: Rebuilding America and the World
    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

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    August 03, 2020 —
    On June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020). In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4. The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5. In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id. The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10. Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id. Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/04/23) – NFL Star Gets into Real Estate, DOJ Focuses on “Buyer-Broker Commissions”, and the Auto Workers’ Strike Continues

    November 13, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, seller impersonation fraud becomes an issue in the United States, major retailers are closing over 3,000 stores nationwide, the Tampa Rays are set to construct a new $1.3 billion stadium, and more!
    • NFL star Tyler Lockett is preparing for his life and career after football by becoming a real estate broker in both Washington state and Texas. (Brady Henderson, ESPN)
    • Seller impersonation fraud has become a major scam in the United States with 73% of real estate firms reporting an increase in these schemes since the beginning of the year. (Diane Tomb, Fortune)
    • “Buyer-broker commissions” are a focus for the U.S. Justice Department as they have filed a “statement of interest” in one case in Massachusetts while there are several other pending lawsuits in U.S. courts. (Mike Scarcella, Reuters)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    August 27, 2013 —
    Need another sign of the housing recovery? Lowe’s stock price is up. Bloomberg News reports that the home-improvement retailer rose by 88 cents a share in the last quarter. Analysts had predicted gains of 79 cents a share, and the same quarter last year saw profits of 64 cents a share. The increase in profits come from more purchases and higher spending per purchase. While Lowe’s negotiated some better prices with vendors and dropped some items that weren’t selling, none of the profits came from staff reduction; the retailer actually increased staffing. Home Depot, the largest such chain (Lowe’s is number 2), also saw profits that exceeded analysts’ projections. They, too, have decided to focus on assisting customers. Their increase in profits was attributed to greater spending by contractors and homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

    August 15, 2018 —
    The Third Circuit upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a claim seeking coverage for construction defects. Lenick Constr. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018). Westrum was the general contractor for a 92 unit development, and it subcontracted with Lenick to perform rough and finish carpentry and to install paneling, windows, and doors provided by the developer. After the project was completed, it was discovered that some units experienced water infiltration, leaks and cracked drywall. The condominium development sued Westrum, alleging contract and warranty claims. Westrum impleaded Lenick, asserting claims for breach of contract and indemnification. Lenick sought a defense from its insurer, Selective. Selective defended under a reservation of rights. 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

    Winners Announced in Seattle’s Office-to-Residential Call for Ideas Contest

    July 10, 2023 —
    On June 7, 2023, the City of Seattle announced three winners of its Office to Residential: Call for Ideas contest for which it received a total of 13 submissions. Hybrid Architecture, LLC, took first place; Gensler, Seattle Office Project Team took second; and the Miller Hull Partnership took third. Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections will study the submissions and determine what legislative and regulatory modifications would be necessary to support and further these proposals and other future office-to-residential conversion projects. Seattle will also be holding a series of exhibitions over the coming weeks where project submissions will be available to the public. On June 14, 2023, from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM, a reception will be hosted by the Seattle Architecture Foundation and the City at the American Institute of Architects. The gallery will also be open to the public from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on June 21, 28, and July 5. After June 14, 2023, those interested can access contest submissions at the project website. Seattle’s primary goal with this contest was to provide a vision for the future of downtown and begin charting a concrete path to getting there. Since working from home has become more common following the COVID-19 pandemic, vacancy rates in many office buildings have risen sharply, while housing availability and affordability remain ongoing issues. If Seattle can show a realistic—and profitable—path to converting commercial office spaces into residences, it would be addressing both problems, killing two birds with one stone. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryanne Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    January 13, 2014 —
    A lawsuit alleges that Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance Co. retroactively cancelled policies, substituting policies that covered less after claims were made due to damages from Hurricane Sandy. Insurance Journal reports that Dayton Towers Corp., which owns seven high-rises in Queens, New York City, has sued the insurer. According to Dayton, the policies covered the buildings for amounts from $2.5 to $2.7 million. The total coverage for all seven buildings was $18.5 million. Under new policies, the buildings were covered for $250,000 each, for a total of $1,750,000, which is the amount that Fidelity paid Dayton. The lawsuit alleges that the policy does not allow for the terms to be rewritten when claims are pending. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    September 09, 2011 —

    The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

    The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

    Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

    The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

    The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

    The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

    The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    August 20, 2018 —
    On July 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case of Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA. Environmental conservation groups and industry associations petitioned for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. Denying the petitions for review, the Court of Appeals summarized:
    “Because we conclude, among other things, that both the Rule and the biological opinion are based on reasonable interpretations of the applicable statutes and sufficiently supported by the factual record, and because the EPA 3 gave adequate notice of its rulemaking, we DENY the petitions for review.”
    This is a significant CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision involving the operation of major industrial facilities requiring the daily use of large amounts of water taken from adjacent bodies of water. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com