BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington building code expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington building expertSeattle Washington reconstruction 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


    Do You Really Want Mandatory Arbitration in Your Construction Contract?

    U.S. Building Permits Soared to Their Highest Level in Nearly Eight Years

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

    How to Prevent Forest Fires by Building Cities With More Wood

    Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

    3D Printing: A New Era in Concrete Construction

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    4 Ways the PRO Act Would Impact the Construction Industry

    Wildfire Risk Harms California Home Values, San Francisco Fed Study Finds

    Georgia Law: “An Occurrence Can Arise Where Faulty Workmanship Causes Unforeseen or Unexpected Damage to Other Property”

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    Eleven Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2023 U.S. News Best Lawyers in Multiple Practice Areas

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    Another Las Vegas Tower at the Center of Construction Defect Claims

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Eliminates Loss from Hurricane

    The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule

    Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit

    South Africa Wants Payment From Colluding World Cup Builders

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals

    Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site

    Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

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

    NYC Rail Tunnel Cost Jumps and Construction Start Pushed Back

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    Vinci Will Build $580M Calgary Project To Avoid Epic Flood Repeat

    Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

    Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

    The Biggest Trials Coming to Courts Around the World in 2021

    Georgia State and Local Governments Receive Expanded Authority for Conservation Projects

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Techniques for Resolving Construction Disputes

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?
    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

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    December 17, 2015 —
    In Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty. The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    September 07, 2017 —
    Starting July 1st of this year, Iowa homeowners now have only ten years to file a claim against the builder instead of the fifteen years that was allowed previously, reported WZAD 8 News. Furthermore, commercial property owners will only have eight years to file their suits. Scott Webster, Vice President of the Quad Cities Builders and Re-modelers Association, told WZAD 8 News that insurance companies played a part in the change: “[I]nsurance companies were saying, Iowa is at such a long period of time for any kind of defect, that may be hard to prove whether the builder even did it or the homeowner modified the house.” However, Tom Miller, Iowa Attorney General, disagreed with the change in policy: “We think that it’s unfair to consumers, the defects in buildings and commercial buildings too, can show up very easily between eight and fifteen years out.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

    April 19, 2022 —
    In a dispute between two insurers, the Ninth Circuit relied upon Nevada law in finding that the burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applies was on the insured. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1626 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2022). Ironshore insured seven subcontractors. The policy included an exclusion providing there was no coverage for any property damage for the subcontractors' for "work performed prior to the policy inception." An exception to the exclusion provided that the exclusion did not apply to property damage that was "sudden and accidental and takes place within the policy period." The seven subcontractors were sued for work they had performed. Zurich defended and indemnified the subcontractors. Zurich then sued Ironshore seeking contribution and indemnification for defense and settlement costs. The parties stipulated that all construction work at issue had been completed before the inception of Ironshore's policy and that none of the complaints against the subcontractors alleged that sudden and accidental damage had occurred after the inception of Ironshore's policy. 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

    When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

    December 23, 2023 —
    New York, N.Y. (December 7, 2023) - It has long been the rule in New York that a defendant should disclose all insurance policies that might provide coverage to the plaintiff for an underlying claim. McKiernan v Vaccaro, 168 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2019]; Keenan v Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, 205 AD2d 589 [2d Dept 1994]. This rule applies to all tort cases, including motor vehicle; however, it does not apply to lawsuits seeking to recover No Fault expenses (see, CPLR 3101(f)(5)). Frequently, a plaintiff will demand a copy of the policy even when the claim is still pre-suit. This raises the question of when the insurer must comply with this specific type of discovery demand in New York. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
    Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

    One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

    October 30, 2013 —
    The New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013) The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects. Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Recession Graduates’ Six-Year Gap in Homeownership

    October 15, 2014 —
    According to Zillow Real Estate Research, “Five years after completing their degree, young adults who graduate into a recession still have a lower homeownership rate than peers graduating into normal economic times. But at six years this gap disappears.” Zillow’s research demonstrated “that graduating into a recession has a lasting adverse effect on young adults’ employment and earning, a phenomenon known as labor market ‘scarring.’” Furthermore, “Homeownership is closely tied to the labor market, particularly among young adults, and some preliminary evidence suggests that a similar ‘scarring’ effect occurs with respect to the homeownership rate among young adults who graduate into a weak economy.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

    January 06, 2012 —

    The California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.

    The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.

    The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.

    The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”

    The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    February 27, 2019 —
    St. Petersburg, Russia (AP) -- Part of the roof and several floors of university building in Russia's second-largest city collapsed Saturday, but officials say there were no casualties. The Emergencies Ministry said the collapse at the Saint Petersburg National Research University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics took place as construction work was underway. An investigation into criminal violation of construction safety has been opened. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Associated Press, Bloomberg