BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington testifying construction expert witnessSeattle Washington building code compliance expert witnessSeattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington architect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling 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


    Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

    California Supreme Court Finds Vertical Exhaustion Applies to First-Level Excess Policies

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    Biden Administration Issues Buy America Guidance for Federal Infrastructure Funds

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Nationally Ranked as a 2020 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®

    The Architecture of Tomorrow Mimics Nature to Cool the Planet

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

    Trump Administration Issues Proposed 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    NYC Rail Tunnel Cost Jumps and Construction Start Pushed Back

    Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

    In Kansas City, a First-Ever Stadium Designed for Women’s Sports Takes the Field

    Idaho Construction Executive Found Guilty of Fraud and Tax Evasion

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    Illinois Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect Claim Triggers Initial Grant of Coverage

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Truck Hits Warning Beam That Falls, Kills Motorist at Las Vegas Bridge Project

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    Editorial: Qatar Is Champion of Safety Hypocrisy in Migrant Worker Deaths

    Congratulations to Partner Vik Nagpal on his Nomination for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

    Strategic Communication Considerations for Contractors Regarding COVID-19

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    “Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building
    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. Leveraging 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

    California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

    February 15, 2021 —
    A Superior Court in California overruled the insurer's demurrer to the policy holder's complaint seeking business interruption coverage after government shutdown orders were issued because of the coronavirus pandemic. Goodwill Industries of Orange County, California v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., Cal. Superior Ct., Civil No. 30-2020-01169032-CU-IC-CXC (Minute Order Jan. 28,, 2021). The minute order is here [Goodwill Decision]. The insurer demurred on the ground that the insured had not alleged sufficient facts to show "direct physical loss" under the business income, extra expenses and civil authority provisions in the policy because coronavirus and COVID-19 did not physically alter the structure. 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

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    May 02, 2022 —
    The court determined that the insurer improperly denied a defense for construction defect claims made against the insured. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMillin Tex. Homes, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEIS 40363 (W.D. Texas March 8, 2022). McMillin was a developer, general contractor and home seller. It constructed multiple homes in various communities in the San Antonio area. After the homes were completed, homeowners observed defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish. After claims were lodged against McMillin, the various claims were tendered to Amerisure. Amerisure filed for declaratory judgment that it had to duty to defend or indemnify and moved for summary judgment. Amerisure first argued the homeowners' faulty workmanship claims did not allege "property damage" under the policies. It argued there were no allegations that any property damage existed, but merely that the stucco suffered from construction defects. The court disagreed. Among the allegations was the statement that due to the construction defects, the homes suffered damage "not only to the exterior stucco, but also to the underlying wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, flashing, water resistive barriers, sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and/ or other property." Consequently, the underlying claims amounted to property damage. 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

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    June 29, 2020 —
    Few things can dampen the thrill and promise of a newly closed construction deal than the realization that it could quickly become a losing proposition for the contractor depending on economic and other conditions. In an era of instant information, constantly adjusting markets and political extremes, projects that start under one set of assumptions or conditions can occur or conclude under much different ones. While no one has a crystal ball, there are contractual provisions that can provide clear guidance in the face of many “what ifs” that can arise in construction. One of the chief concerns a contractor should have in a project lasting more than a few months is what impact price increases will have on the profitability of the job. On a true cost-plus project, this may be of little concern, but on any project with a limitation on costs or a guaranteed maximum price, contractors should insist on a procedure to revisit the limitation or price if certain conditions change. This can be as simple as allowing the contractor to receive an upward adjustment in the price if costs increase by more than a certain percentage. It can be as complicated as requiring multiple new bids and disclosures to the property owner, architect or project manager and allowing approval of new suppliers or subcontractors to limit cost increases to the cheapest increase. The protection—and certainty—to the contractor though, comes from having a process in the contract to address cost increases, whether it is simple or complex. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Lambert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Lambert may be contacted at Jason.lambert@dinsmore.com

    High School Gym Closed by Construction Defects

    October 28, 2011 —

    The high school gym in Lake Oswego, Oregon has been shut down because testing has revealed that the construction defects have lead to deterioration of the structural integrity of the roof. The school district noted that there was a chance of collapse if there were a “significant seismic event or heavy rain and winds and snow.” The school district has been in a lawsuit with the builders since 2008, which was recently settled for $600,000.

    The school board is still determining whether the original contractor will be asked to correct the defect or if they will bid the job out.

    Read the full story...

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

    Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?

    February 10, 2020 —
    If you are like many contractors, odds are that your home improvement contract (HIC) is not compliant with California law, putting you at risk for disciplinary action, voiding of the contract, and even criminal prosecution. Generally, the laws allow parties to contract how they wish. However, California HICs are an exception and California Business and Professions Code (BPC) requires much in the way of content, form and formatting for a HIC to meet the legal requirements. This is because California has written its laws to provide broad protections to homeowners when it comes to construction work performed at their residence. However, in attempting to promote this goal, the laws surrounding HICs have produced requirements that are confusing and fail to account for the realities of a home improvement project, making it difficult and uncomfortable for contractors to comply. A HIC is required for home improvement projects that change a residence or property. Specifically, the law defines a “home improvement” as “the repairing, remodeling, altering, converting, or modernizing of, or adding to, residential property and shall include, but not be limited to, the construction, erection, replacement or improvement of driveways, swimming pools, including spas and hot tubs, terraces, patios, awnings, storm windows, landscaping, fences, porches, garages, fallout shelters, basements, and other improvements of the structures or land which is adjacent to a dwelling house.” (BPC section 7151.) A HIC is not required for new residential construction; for work priced at $500 or less; the sale, installation, and service of a fire alarm or burglar system; or a service and repair contract (which has its own requirements). When a HIC is used, BPC section 7159 specifies certain content, form, and format requirements, all of which must be followed to produce a compliant HIC. While this article will not discuss all of these requirements, it will discuss some of the problems commonly seen in HICs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
    Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    June 28, 2013 —
    Catherine Rampell reports in the New York Times that while the number of single-family homes built in 2012 was still at the very bottom of the range, since the government starting recording this data in 1973, the medium size for these homes is at its largest ever. According to data collected by the Census Bureau, these homes also have more bedrooms and bathrooms than previously. Of all homes built in 2012, forty-one percent had four or more bedrooms and thirty percent had three or more bathrooms. Both of these were the highest percentages in those categories. Meanwhile, the size of newly-built rental units declined in 2012. While still larger than the average rental unit built in 1999 (the earliest date given in the article), there has been little change over the last decade. During the same period, the size of sale units in multi-family buildings did show an increase. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

    March 16, 2020 —
    A New York appellate court recently held that renewable bio-diesel fuel manufacturer BioEnergy Development Group LLC may pursue tens of millions of dollars in damages from its insurers under two all-risk insurance policies, including amounts in excess of the policy limits, where the insurers refused to pay claims in a timely manner. BioEnergy purchased two all-risk property policies from Lloyd’s to provide coverage for its manufacturing plant in Memphis, Tennessee. A fire destroyed the Memphis plant in March 2016, eliminating BioEnergy’s production capacity and sole source of revenue. BioEnergy made claims under the policies and sought to rebuild its plant. The insurers acknowledged coverage and eventually made approximately $8 million in interim payments, but the parties disagreed over the value of the total property damage claim, which BioEnergy contended was in excess of $24 million. The disputed claim was submitted to appraisal, which resulted in the insurers agreeing to pay the full business interruption limit of $15.1 million. The insurers filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit, however, seeking to limit BioEnergy’s recovery to the policy limits of $15.1 million. BioEnergy alleged that the insurers failed to make interim payments in a timely manner after the fire and, as a result, the company suffered increased losses because it could not rebuild without the insurance proceeds. BioEnergy sought actual and consequential damages, plus attorneys’ fees, arising from the delayed payments, including payment of its business interruption losses in excess of the policy limits. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    October 21, 2024 —
    Seeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies. While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of