BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington building code compliance expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington architecture 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


    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    A Year After Fatal Genoa Viaduct Collapse, Replacement Takes Shape

    Traub Lieberman Partner Kathryn Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Secure Final Summary Judgment in Favor of Homeowner’s Insurance Company

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    The Argument for Solar Power

    Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    NY Gov. Sets Industry Advisory Council to Fix Public Contracts Process

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

    Re-Entering the Workplace: California's Guideline for Employers

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

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

    CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

    Perovskite: The Super Solar Cells

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/11/23) – Millennials Struggle Finding Homes, Additional CHIPS Act Funding Available, and the Supreme Court Takes up Hotel Lawsuit Case

    NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

    2017 California Employment Law Update

    Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    4 Steps to Take When a Worker Is Injured on Your Construction Site

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Apparently, It’s Not Always Who You Know”

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    Rights Afforded to Employees and Employers During Strikes

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    ASHRAE Seeks Comments by May 26 on Draft of Pathogen Mitigation Standard

    The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.

    Real Case, Real Lessons: Understanding Builders’ Risk Insurance Limits

    AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas

    The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions
    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

    Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

    August 31, 2020 —
    The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction. In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1 Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

    January 05, 2017 —
    One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    November 26, 2014 —
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Background Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii] Reprinted courtesy of Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    English High Court Finds That Business-Interruption Insurance Can Cover COVID-19 Losses

    November 02, 2020 —
    In a decision that will influence how policyholders and insurers around the world address business-interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, the English High Court recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the “Test Case,” The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v. Arch et al. The High Court’s comprehensive analysis will likely serve as an additional tool in policyholders’ arsenal in the ongoing battles over COVID-19 coverage. The Panel, composed of two well-respected judges, one from the High Court (the UK’s trial court) and the other from the English Court of Appeal, analyzed 21 sample policy wordings in coverage extensions for business-interruption losses due to disease or the issuance of public authority orders. (Many of these wordings are also found in policies sold to US policyholders.) The High Court found that the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing government actions fell within the coverage provided by the sample policy wordings. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    June 15, 2017 —
    Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018. THE NEW LAW – SB 496 SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof. However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists). WHAT CAN BE DONE NOW? Developers and Owners should strongly consider reviewing and revising the indemnity provisions in their consultant contracts to comply with the new legislation before the first of the year. This includes master agreements because project addenda entered into after January 1 are subject to the new law. The statute does not apply to current contracts, so these do not need to be amended. Questions? Newmeyer & Dillion is happy to assist in navigating the process to ensure you are compliant prior to January’s deadline. Please let us know how we can help. Mark Himmelstein is a partner focused in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He has an in-depth experience in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. You can reach him at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com. Jenny Guzman is a litigation associate in the Newport Beach office, focusing her practice in the areas of business and real estate litigation and transactions. You can reach her at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit http://newmeyeranddillion.com/ Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newark Trial Team Obtains Affirmance of Summary Judgment for General Contractor Client

    January 21, 2025 —
    Newark, N.J. (December 31, 2024) - Days after obtaining an Appellate Division victory affirming a “no cause” jury verdict, Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett obtained a second appellate court victory affirming a trial court's dismissal of a complaint against another firm client, a general contractor. The team had previously obtained summary judgment at the trial level on the grounds plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case against the client. The plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal of her claim to the Appellate Division. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    September 01, 2011 —

    The California Court of Appeals has rejected a motion by a homeowner in a dispute with the contractor who built an extension to his home. In McCracken v. Pirvulete, Mr. McCracken filed a mechanics lien after Mr. Pirvulete failed to complete payment. The matter went to trial with a series of exhibits that showed “the contractual relationship was strained and the parties disagreed over performance and payment.” As a result of the trial, the court awarded Mr. McCracken, the contractor, $1,922.22.

    Mr. Pirvulete appealed, contending that the court had not allowed his daughter to act as a translator, that the court had failed to give him sufficient time to present his case, that the mechanics lien should have been dismissed, and several other claims, all before a formal judgment was issued. After the court formalized its judgment and rejected the appeal, Mr. Pirvulete appealed again.

    The appeals court found that Mr. Pirvulete did not provide an adequate record for review. The court dismissed Mr. Pirvulete’s claims. The court notes that Mr. Pirvulete claimed that a request for a discovery period was denied, however, he has provided neither the request nor the denial. The trial court has no record of either.

    Nor was there a record of a request that Mr. Pirvulete’s daughter provide translation. The court notes, “so far as we can glean from the record provided, the Register of Actions states, ‘Trial to proceed without Romanian Interpreter for Defendant; Daughter present to interpret if needed.’” Additionally, the court found that “there has been no showing that his facility with the English language is or was impaired in any way or that there was any portion of any proceeding, which he did not understand.”

    Further, the appeals court found there were no grounds for a new trial, despite Mr. Pirvulete’s filings. The court concluded, “The owner has failed to provide a record adequate for review of most, if not all, of the claims of error. Some issues are not cognizable because they relate to entirely separate proceedings, and not the trial below. To the limited extent that the claims are examinable, the owner has made no showing of error.” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court against Mr. Pirvulete.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    December 16, 2019 —
    The construction industry added 14,000 net new jobs in August, according to an Associated Builders and Contractors analysis of data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. On a year-over-year basis, industry employment has expanded by 177,000 jobs, or 2.4%. Nonresidential construction employment increased by 11,600 net jobs in August and is up by 114,200 net jobs over the last 12 months, translating into 2.5% growth. The majority of job gains emerged from nonresidential specialty trade contractors, which added 5,400 jobs last month and nearly 103,000 positions over the past year. Heavy and civil engineering added 4,400 net new jobs, while nonresidential building added 1,800 jobs on a monthly basis. The construction unemployment rate stood at 3.6% in August, up 0.2 percentage points from the same time last year. Unemployment across all industries stood at 3.7% in August, unchanged from the previous month. “While job growth across all industries fell short of projections, today’s employment report was just about perfect,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “Yes, employment growth has been softening for quite some time, with average monthly job growth totaling 150,000 during the last six months after approaching 200,000 during the prior six-month period. And employment growth estimates were also revised lower for both June and July. That said, looking beyond the headline number, August’s labor market performance was more than respectable, even accounting for about 25,000 of the jobs being added for temporary Census work. Reprinted courtesy of ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of