BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington structural concrete expert
    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


    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

    Georgia Coal-to-Solar Pivot Shows the Way on Climate Regs

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

    Atlanta Hawks Billionaire Owner Plans $5 Billion Downtown Transformation

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You May Want an Intervention …”

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Skyline Cockpit’s Game-Changing Tower Crane Teleoperation

    Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Ivanhoe Cambridge Plans Toronto Office Towers, Terminal

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

    Signs of a Slowdown in Luxury Condos

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Residential Interior Decorator Was Entitled to Lien and Was Not Engaging in Unlicensed Contracting

    CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage

    EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule

    Appraisal Goes Forward Even Though Insurer Has Yet to Determine Coverage on Additional Claims

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “This Is Sufficient for Your Purposes …”

    Iowa Tornado Flattens Homes, Businesses and Wind Turbines

    Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus

    The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Critical Updates in Builders Risk Claim Recovery: Staying Ahead of the "Satisfactory State" Argument and Getting the Most Out of LEG 3

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    Court of Appeals Confirms that King County Superior Court’s Jury Selection Process Satisfies Due Process Requirements

    Settlement Agreement? It Ain’t Over ‘Til it’s . . . Final, in Writing, Fully Executed, and Admissible

    US Court Disputes $1.8B AECOM Damage Award in ‘Remarkable Fraud’ Suit

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

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

    Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations

    Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    The Colorado Supreme Court affirms Woodbridge II’s “Adverse Use” Distinction

    December 20, 2021 —
    Last year, I posted regarding the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Woodbridge II, which concluded that the “adverse use” element for prescriptive easement claims only requires the claimant to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2. Thus, Woodbridge II concluded, the claimants acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. Id. That decision was up for review by the Colorado Supreme Court at the time of my prior post. It has now been affirmed, thereby settling an arguable appellate decision split created by Woodbridge II. See Lo Viento Blanco, LLC v. Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2021 CO 56 (“Woodbridge”). “Like the division below, and for much the same reasons,” the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in Woodbridge “that under Colorado law, a claimant’s acknowledgement or recognition of the owner’s title during the claimant’s asserted prescriptive period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine the claimant’s adverse use.” Woodbridge, ¶ 2. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Gabriel’s opinion agreed with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning “that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner’s title.” Id. ¶ at 13. The Court further agreed with Woodbridge II’srejection of Lo Viento’s “permissive use” argument because “the permission offered … was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.” Id. On that basis, Woodbridge confirmed that “a claimant seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period,” but only “that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Id. at ¶ 23. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

    California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels

    December 31, 2014 —
    The Complex Civil Litigation Program is relatively new as it has only existed in California since 2000. Complex divisions dedicate courtrooms solely for litigation of complex civil cases that require exceptional judicial management including construction defects, antitrust, securities, toxic torts, mass torts, and class actions. Complex civil courtrooms help the trial court operate in a more efficient, expeditious, and effective manner. A complex court reduces costs for litigants by streamlining motion practice and expeditiously resolving discovery disputes. Not all counties have dedicated complex civil divisions. For those that do, each county has its own local rules, and some complex divisions have their own particular set of rules. The Judicial management of complex cases begins early, and is applied continuously and actively with the idea that final resolution be expedited as much as possible. In focusing on cooperation amongst the parties to achieve these goals, often requiring joint statements to the court and a prohibition on discovery motions until after the parties have formally metand- conferred on the issues. Moreover, complex cases are centralized and are assigned to one highly skilled Judge for all purposes. The first six California counties to create a Complex Civil division include Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. Riverside County Superior Court is the most recent California County to add a Complex division, effective January 2015. Riverside county Superior Court’s Complex department consists of ten civil judges, seven of which are in the main courthouse with Riverside. Riverside county expects to consolidate all complex civil litigation into one courtroom by January 2015. Riverside county Judge Sharon Waters state that "[i]t's been something that I personally have felt has been long overdue" and that "[t]he idea is that put it with one judge and let him or her develop the expertise." Judge Waters believes "[t]he potential value of establishing a complex litigation courtroom [is that] it allows the judge to focus on the cases full time."1 As of October 2014, Riverside county had about 450 to 500 pending cases designated as complex, over fifty percent (50%) of which involved construction defect matters. The sole Judge who will preside over the complex cases has not yet been named. 1 Jolly, Vik. "Riverside to Shift Complex Civil Cases to 1 Courtroom." Los Angeles Daily Journal (October 13, 2014) Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com; and Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Research Shows Engineering Firms' Impact on Economy, Continued Optimism on Business Climate

    October 28, 2024 —
    WASHINGTON – The ACEC Research Institute – the leading source of original research for the business of engineering – released the results of two important studies on the current and future state of the engineering industry, and its role in the overall U.S. economy. The reports, the 2024 Economic Assessment of the Engineering & Design Services Industry and the Engineering Business Sentiment Report for 2024 Q4, both point to continued optimism for the industry and its firms, though somewhat softened compared to previous quarters. "This research shows the outsized impact the engineering industry has on the American economy," said ACEC Research Institute Chair Mike Carragher. "As the engineering industry's contributions grow year over year, the Institute's research helps firm executives position their businesses for a successful future." All told, the industry added $656 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2023, supported well over five million jobs directly or indirectly, and contributed $92 billion to federal tax coffers, with an additional $44 billion in state and local taxes. Overall, the report found that the engineering and design services industry has continued to build on its year-over-year post-COVID gains, growing 5.5% in 2023 to $436 billion, with much of that growth driven by infrastructure projects. Non-residential and non-building construction, flush with government funding through the IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act, remained on an upward trajectory. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change

    July 16, 2023 —
    Britain’s increasingly extreme weather is shaking the very foundations of its centuries-old history. The nation has been experiencing prolonged periods of drought after wet winters since last year. That’s causing the porous rock beneath vast parts of southeast of England, including London, to move more than usual, cracking or tilting many of the city’s historical homes in the plushest neighborhoods. The damage has triggered the highest insurance payout in almost two decades, with experts warning that it could get worse. The London clay, the type of soil that covers most of these areas, “is quite unique” because it can shrink and swell a lot, according to Lee Jones, a geological engineer at the British Geological Survey who has studied UK hazards for over 30 years. “The wetter it gets, the more it swells and expands and the drier it gets, the more it shrinks and cracks,” he said, adding that future temperature extremes will exacerbate the impact on buildings and roads. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Priscila Azevedo Rocha, Bloomberg

    Biden’s Solar Plans Run Into a Chinese Wall

    May 23, 2022 —
    A new and unexpected obstacle to President Joe Biden’s green ambitions has emerged: a tiny solar-power company based in San Jose. Auxin Solar Inc., which accounts for all of 2% of U.S. solar-module manufacturing, recently persuaded the Commerce Department to open a potentially devastating trade inquiry. After the U.S. imposed anti-dumping measures against Chinese solar-cell and module manufacturers just over a decade ago, alternative suppliers sprang up in South Korea and Southeast Asia. Auxin now contends that those other Asian suppliers are effectively used by Chinese companies to circumvent the anti-dumping measures. If Commerce ultimately agrees, then more than four-fifths of solar-module imports to the U.S. and half of all cells could suddenly be subject to steep tariffs, perhaps levied retroactively. The Solar Energy Industries Association warns of dire consequences for U.S. solar-power development — critical to Biden’s decarbonization targets — claiming that some suppliers are already backing away because of the risk. Heavyweight NextEra Energy Inc. warns that the investigation may delay 2.8 gigawatts of projects slated for this year. Timothy Fox of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based analysis firm, says Commerce’s “structural” inclination toward protectionism may lead it to concur with Auxin. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Liam Denning, Bloomberg

    Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

    November 06, 2013 —
    A renovation of the city hall in Bay City, Michigan went wrong when roof repairs lead to fire and flooding of the historic building. Bay City has sued Gregory Construction and Mihm Enterprises, who earlier had been awarded a $1.5 million contract to reroof the building. The cost of repairing the building is expected to exceed the city’s insurance limit of $10 million. The fire that damaged the building is alleged to have started when a roofer allegedly used a DeWalt grinder in attempt to remove some bolts. Under the contract with the city, the contractor was not going to use grinders, due to the risk of fire. The suit alleges that further water damage was caused, beyond the damage due to the firefighting, due to the contractor failing to “secure a section of the roof which was part of the Roofing Project with a tarp or other water-resistant covering.” The contractors dispute the claims made by Bay City, with Gregory Construction describing them as “untrue and contrary to the facts.” Gregory Construction also claims that their obligations were delegated to Mihn Enterprises. Mihn Enterprises disputes this and states that they do not “owe a duty to the Plaintiffs; as a result their negligence claim is unenforceable as a matter of law.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    'You're Talking About Lives': The New Nissan Stadium

    August 26, 2024 —
    The new Tennessee Titans sports complex rising up on the banks of the Cumberland River in Nashville is a big project no matter how you look at it. Nissan Stadium will have 60,000 seats, cover 1.85 million square feet and cost an estimated $2.1 billion. Four contractors are involved, operating under a joint venture called the Tennessee Builders Alliance: Turner Construction Co., AECOM Hunt, Polk & Associates Construction and I.C.F. Builders & Consultants. And nearly 20,000 workers will play a role over the project’s three-year timeline. The sheer size and scope of the job led Tyler White, TBA’s environmental health and safety director, to think that the project needed to approach safety on a similar scale. The result is a first-of-its-kind public-private partnership between the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration and TBA. “I thought it would be a good idea,” White says. “I know they’re stretched thin, but [we’re] very appreciate of advocating and allocating their resources.” Reprinted courtesy of Grace Austin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Colorado Supreme Court Rules that Developers Retain Perpetual Control over Construction Defect Covenants

    June 21, 2017 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that developers can retain control over community covenants in perpetuity by recording a covenant that requires declarant consent to any amendments. Although the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) states that such controls should be void, the court nevertheless ruled that a declarant may veto amendments that alter the dispute resolution procedures for construction defect actions at any time. The case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 15CO508, arose when the community’s members discovered widespread construction defects. When the declarant developed the project, it had recorded a declaration of covenants that purported to waive the homeowners’ right to a jury trial and instead require that any construction defect disputes be resolved by a private arbitration panel. The declaration also prohibited the homeowners from recovering attorney fees and costs, and it limited the declarant’s liability for damages. Consistent with CCIOA, the declaration allowed the homeowners to amend their covenants by a 67% vote, but it recited that the declarant could veto any such amendment prior to the sale of the last unit to a homeowner. The covenants further stated that the declarant must consent to any amendment that altered the construction defect restrictions. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of