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


    Unravel the Facts Before Asserting FDUTPA and Tortious Interference Claims

    The G2G Year-End Roundup (2022)

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

    South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 2: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages

    A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher

    Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Oklahoma Finds Policy Can Be Assigned Post-Loss

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston

    Civil Engineers: Montana's Infrastructure Grade Declines to a 'C-'

    Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

    Fixing That Mistake

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    Florida’s New Civil Remedies Act – Bulletpoints As to How It Impacts Construction

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

    Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

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

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2021 “Atlanta 500” List

    A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

    Building Materials Price Increase Clause for Contractors and Subcontractors – Three Options

    Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    Teaming Agreements- A Contract to Pursue a Solicitation and Negotiate

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Give a Little Extra …”

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    Construction Defect Bill a Long Shot in Nevada

    Despite Increased Presence in Construction, Women Lack Size-Appropriate PPE

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules

    Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

    Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade

    NCDOT Aims to Reopen Helene-damaged Interstate 40 by New Year's Day
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Seattle's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    June 14, 2011 —

    I just came across a case that I think truly paints the insurance dilemma for contractors. Thanks to this recent Illinois case, I don’t have to make up any factual scenarios—so kudos to Attorney Robert Boylan for posting it.

    In reading over my RSS feeds this weekend, I noticed a great writeup on long-time blogger Josh Glazov’s Construction Law Today. Attorney Robert Boylan’s post describes a recent Illinois case where a general contractor was denied its additional insured status on a second-tier subcontractor’s insurance. The reason for the denial: the general contractor failed to procure an agreement in writing with the second-tier subcontractor, requiring it to be listed as an additional insured.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    November 30, 2017 —
    Dover, Del. (AP) -- An earthquake has jolted the Mid-Atlantic region of the East Coast, but there are no immediate reports of damage or injuries. The U.S. Geological Survey says the 4.1 magnitude quake struck just after 4:45 p.m. Thursday, and was centered about 6 miles (10 kilometers) east-northeast of Dover, Delaware. It was felt as far away as Baltimore. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Associated Press (Randall Chase), Bloomberg

    Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion

    April 15, 2024 —
    This post takes a look at the enforceability of contract provisions providing for liquidated delay damages after substantial completion. Typically, the assessment of liquidated delay damages ends at substantial completion of a project. However, various standard form contracts, including some of the ConsensusDocs and EJCDC contracts, contain elections allowing for the parties to agree on the use of liquidated damages for failing to achieve substantial completion, final completion, or project milestones. The standard language in the AIA A201 leaves it up to the parties to define the circumstances under which liquidated damages will be awarded. Courts are split on the enforceability of provisions that seek to assess liquidated damages beyond substantial completions. Courts in some jurisdictions will not impose liquidated damages after the date of substantial completion on the ground that liquidated damages would otherwise become a penalty if assessed after the owner has put the project to its intended use. Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 610 A.2d 364 (1992). When the terms are clear, other jurisdictions will enforce contract terms providing for liquidated damages until final completion, even if the owner has taken beneficial use of the facility. Carrothers Const. Co. v. City of S. Hutchinson, 288 Kan. 743, 207 P.3d 231 (2009). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
    Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

    Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

    April 17, 2019 —
    Duke Energy Progress said April 11 it will appeal the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality’s order issued earlier this month to excavate nine remaining large coal ash pits at six power plants in the state and move ash to lined landfills; the firm claims the new mandate at sites previously deemed low-risk will cost up to $5 billion to implement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

    August 19, 2015 —
    The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    June 17, 2024 —
    We congratulate our Payne & Fears attorneys named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars in the following practice areas: Employment & Labor Blake A. Dillion Business Litigation Leilani L. Jones Employment Litigation: Defense Tyler B. Runge Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

    Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

    March 13, 2023 —
    In Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts. In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss. On June 3, 2017, there was an explosion and fire at the plant that caused significant property damage. The plaintiff insurers (Plaintiffs) made payments in the amount of $80 million and became subrogated to its insured’s rights. Plaintiffs then initiated this action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    September 28, 2017 —
    The Tunnel Boring Machine (“TBM”) known as “Bertha,” built by Hitachi Zosen Corp in Osaka, Japan, was the world’s largest TBM at 57.5 ft. in diameter. The TBM was built to drill the Seattle SR 99 Viaduct replacement tunnel. Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”) has a contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to dig the two-mile tunnel which is now complete. In December of 2013, tunneling was stopped ostensibly because a 119 ft.-long, eight-inch diameter steel well casing halted the TBM. See 2/15 Blog “Bertha is Stuck and She Remains Mired in Controversy.” Reports are that WSDOT installed the pipe in 2002 to measure groundwater levels and the pipe was allegedly mentioned in the reference material provided to bidders. STP had assumed that the pipe had been removed until the steel casing got stuck in Bertha’s cutting teeth, halting progress. See 1/30/14 Blog “Big Bertha Stuck: Differing Site Condition Principles Revisited.” STP had a design-build contract with WSDOT. The contract contains a Differing Site Conditions (“DSC”) clause pursuant to which if the contractor can prove that the eight-inch pipe was an unforeseen condition (not disclosed in the contract documents), and that the unforeseen condition caused the TBM’s failure, STP is entitled to an equitable adjustment of its contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com