BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    Is Your Website Accessible And Are You Liable If It Isn't?

    Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

    Insurer Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Under Unjust Enrichment Theory

    Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

    Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

    Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    U.K. to Set Out Plan for Fire-Risk Apartment Cladding Crisis

    When Can Customers Sue for Delays?

    Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction

    Kahana Feld Named to the Orange County Register 2024 Top Workplaces List

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    Presidential Memorandum Promotes Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West

    Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

    California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

    Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

    Late Notice Kills Insured's Claim for Damage Due to Hurricane

    Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor

    White and Williams recognized with Multiple Honorees in the Chambers 2023 USA Guide

    Las Vegas Team Obtains Complete Dismissal of a Traumatic Brain Injury Claim

    Cyber Thieves Phish Away a $735K Payment to a Minnesota Contractor

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” 2025 Editions

    Construction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or Engineer

    Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations

    Critical Materials for the Energy Transition: Of “Rare Earths” and Even Rarer Minerals

    CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    Boston Nonprofit Wants to Put Grown-Ups in Dorms

    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

    The Biggest Trials Coming to Courts Around the World in 2021

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    The Right to Repair Act Isn’t Out for the Count, Yet. Homebuilders Fight Back

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner
    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

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    June 10, 2015 —
    In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    November 27, 2013 —
    After storms damaged homes in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, the state’s Attorney General, warned consumers “to be cautious and on alert for scammers trying to take advantage of people in need of assistance.” Ms. Madigan noted that home repair scammers go into areas with storm damage convince homeowners to pay more than they should to repair storm damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?

    May 30, 2022 —
    Many courts enforce forum selection clauses in contracts between parties. In W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp., No. 3D21-1834, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1637 (W. Bay Plaza), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Court of Appeal) answered the question of whether a mandatory forum selection clause in a manufacturer’s warranty was enforceable as to a condominium association, who was a non-signatory. The trial court enforced the forum selection clause – calling for litigation in New Jersey rather than Florida – and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling. As stated in W. Bay Plaza, in late 2013 and early 2014, West Bay Plaza Condominium Association (W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n) contracted with Built Right Installers International Corporation, R.J. Miranda Consultants, Inc. and UCI Engineering Inc. (collectively, the Construction Defendants) to have repairs done to the exterior of the property. In 2016, Sika Corporation (Sika), a New Jersey corporation, gave a five-year warranty to W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n for three sealant products used to repair the garage at the property. In 2019, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n sued the Construction Defendants for breach of contract and professional negligence. Subsequently, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n amended its complaint and filed a claim against Sika, alleging that Sika breached its warranty because its products failed to provide a watertight barrier. Sika filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that Florida was an improper venue because its’ warranty contained a mandatory forum selection clause. W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n argued that it was not bound by the forum selection clause because it was a non-signatory to the warranty and, even if it was bound by the clause, there were compelling reasons not to enforce it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

    August 10, 2020 —
    Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days. U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    October 21, 2019 —
    In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019). When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Winners Announced in Seattle’s Office-to-Residential Call for Ideas Contest

    July 10, 2023 —
    On June 7, 2023, the City of Seattle announced three winners of its Office to Residential: Call for Ideas contest for which it received a total of 13 submissions. Hybrid Architecture, LLC, took first place; Gensler, Seattle Office Project Team took second; and the Miller Hull Partnership took third. Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections will study the submissions and determine what legislative and regulatory modifications would be necessary to support and further these proposals and other future office-to-residential conversion projects. Seattle will also be holding a series of exhibitions over the coming weeks where project submissions will be available to the public. On June 14, 2023, from 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM, a reception will be hosted by the Seattle Architecture Foundation and the City at the American Institute of Architects. The gallery will also be open to the public from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on June 21, 28, and July 5. After June 14, 2023, those interested can access contest submissions at the project website. Seattle’s primary goal with this contest was to provide a vision for the future of downtown and begin charting a concrete path to getting there. Since working from home has become more common following the COVID-19 pandemic, vacancy rates in many office buildings have risen sharply, while housing availability and affordability remain ongoing issues. If Seattle can show a realistic—and profitable—path to converting commercial office spaces into residences, it would be addressing both problems, killing two birds with one stone. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryanne Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com

    No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

    October 18, 2021 —
    Introduction: Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well. While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond. This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

    Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

    July 11, 2021 —
    Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act is set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 556. Any owner or operator of underground infrastructure as well as contractors that perform underground excavation and demolition operations are familiar (or, need to be familiar) with this Act and the requirements it imposes on them. In a nutshell, this Act requires excavators to notify operators of underground facilities (e.g., pipelines, cables, sewers) through a notification system before excavating or demolishing an underground location. Then notification system gives the operator of the underground facility two days’ advance notice that an excavation will be taking place. After receiving this notice, the operator of the underground facility must mark the area where its infrastructure is located which could be affected by the underground excavation or demolition operations. The Act further imposes duties on excavators to use increased caution, supervise mechanized equipment, perform excavation and demolition operations in a careful an prudent manner, and to re-notify the notification system if the operator’s marking is no longer visible so the location of the operator’s underground facility can be re-marked. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com