BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting architect expert witnessSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington multi family design 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


    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2022 “Atlanta 500” List

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    A Lien Might Just Save Your Small Construction Business

    CFTC Establishes Climate-Risk Unit, Echoing Other Biden Administration Agency Themes

    Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion

    US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

    Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

    Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

    Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

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

    Ex-San Francisco DPW Director Sentenced to Seven Years in Corruption Case

    When Can Customers Sue for Delays?

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

    Nader Eghtesad v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects at Trump Towers

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022

    Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

    Tips for Contractors Who Want to Help Rebuild After the California Wildfires

    Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

    Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent
    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

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    September 24, 2013 —
    A Florida couple who sought more than $10 million in damages in a construction defect suit, has received a jury verdict of only $79,000. Leo and Kathryn Vecellio bought the 25,000 square-foot home in 2008, after which they discovered water intrusion issues. They sued both the builder and couple from whom they had bought the house. Although the Vecellios spent more than $11 million to repair their home, the jury concluded that the builder did not know about the construction defects. The jury did determine that the builder, Dan E. Swanson, did either lie about or conceal certain facts about the construction. He was ordered to pay the $79,000 in damages to the Vecellios. Lawyers for the defendants argued that the leaks were not from the original construction of the home, but were instead caused by the renovations made by the Vecellios. The Vecellios are pursuing whether they are entitled to money from home warranties. “There will be more evidence to be considered. I’m determined to see this through,” said Leo Vecellio. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

    June 17, 2015 —
    Nate Budde on the Construction Payment Blog, discussed the potential of mechanics liens, and the pitfalls that occur when not all necessary parties are named. Budde analyzed the case Johnson Controls Inc. v. Norair Eng’g Corp. that involved a “claimant’s failure to name all the necessary parties in his claim against a bond,” resulting “in the claimant losing his claim against the bond, and with it, an opportunity to get paid.” Budde concluded, “Unfortunately, as was the case here, when the bond claim is not handled correctly procedurally, a party can be left with no recourse for payment. It’s important to understand which of the parties involved should be named in both mechanics lien claims and bond claims.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    April 08, 2014 —
    Marty Markowitz was strolling in Vienna when he noticed mannequins in a shop window wearing hats emblazoned with Paris, London and Brooklyn. The store had plenty of London and Paris models. Brooklyn was sold out. “They said they couldn’t restock the Brooklyn hats fast enough,” said Markowitz, 69, who spent 12 years as president of New York City’s most populous borough before retiring in January. Brooklyn’s cachet as a global brand and epitome of urban hipsterdom is shifting New York City’s center of gravity, reducing the supremacy of Manhattan across the East River and exerting more influence on New York’s political, economic and cultural life. It’s creating jobs and adding residents at a faster pace than any other borough, sparking a boom in commercial development to supply the new masses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Henry Goldman, Bloomberg
    Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net

    Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership

    March 15, 2021 —
    Lewis Brisbois is proud to announce the promotion of 35 of its associates to partner. With these promotions, Lewis Brisbois’ total partnership comes to 933 across its 53 offices. The diverse class of newly promoted attorneys includes 15 women, which brings the total percentage of female partners at Lewis Brisbois to 33%. Los Angeles Managing Partner Jana I. Lubert expressed her excitement about the recent promotions, stating, “On behalf of the Management Committee, I congratulate these outstanding attorneys on their achievement. They have demonstrated an exceptional level of dedication to Lewis Brisbois and to our clients, especially during this difficult past year. I am particularly proud of the diversity that exists across this group.” Similarly, San Bernardino and Chief Diversity Partner Rima M. Badawiya shared her enthusiasm over the diversity of the new partners, explaining, “This group of exceptional attorneys, who have been promoted based upon their extraordinary performance, represents the diversity that exists throughout Lewis Brisbois and our commitment to advancing those who achieve at the highest level.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    September 17, 2015 —
    The insured's claim for loss based on theft and water leaks was not covered under the property policy. SJP Props. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97216 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2015). SJP Properties bought and sold foreclosed properties. On July 13, 2006, it purchased at a foreclosure sale a property in St. Louis. The property was not inspected before or after the purchase, and sat vacant for more than two years. No one checked regularly on the property. The property was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mount Vernon, effective from March 8, 2006 to March 8, 2009. The policy covered vandalism, but excluded loss caused by theft. An exception for the exclusion provided coverage for "building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars." The policy also excluded loss or damage caused by fungus, wet rot, dry rot and bacteria or water leaks for a period of 14 days or more. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

    November 07, 2012 —
    The Fifth Circuit Court has withdrawn its decision in Ewing Construction Company v. Amerisure Insurance Company, pending clarification from the Texas Supreme Court of its decision in Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. The Fifth Circuit had applied the Gilbert case in determining that a contractual liability exclusion barred coverage for faulty workmanship. The Insurance Journal reports that this decision was both applauded and criticized, with a concern noted that “an insurer would now have its pick of either the ‘your work’ exclusion or the contractual liability exclusion without the exception for subcontracted work.” The Fifth Circuit is now asking the Texas Supreme Court two questions to clarify Gilbert, which Brian S. Martin and Suzanne M. Patrick see as a sign that the Court has realized that it overly expanded the scope of the earlier ruling. A response is expected from the Texas Supreme Court by spring 2013. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    You Are on Notice: Failure to Comply With Contractual Notice Provisions Can Be Fatal to Your Claim

    September 26, 2022 —
    Imagine your firm is the construction manager on a multi-million-dollar project. At the end of the project you are five million dollars out-of-pocket. You have a stack of claims for additional and extended work which led to the overrun, payment for which will easily cover the shortfall. However, the owner refuses to compensate you until you can satisfactorily answer their inquiry: “Where are the notices that are expressly required under the terms of the contract?” You had a good relationship with the owner’s field representative who was aware you were performing the work and understood that your company was compiling claims. The once cooperative owner, now suffering financial restraints of their own, is resolute in their refusal leaving you no choice but to expend substantial sums of money to litigate the claims, the success of which is far from assured. What Contract Language Can Be A Trap For An Unwary Contractor? While courts are generally hesitant to order a forfeiture and some courts disfavor condition precedents, a judge’s hands may be tied by particular contract language requiring the strict enforcement of notice requirements. Such provisions may include: (1) an explicit clause that there be precise compliance with notice requirements; (2) express consequences for noncompliance (e.g., if the required notice is not provided the claim will be waived, forfeited or abandoned); (3) a statement that the notice requirements are a condition precedent to recovery; (4) language such as “if,” “provided that,” “or else” or “on condition that” (e.g., the owner shall review the claim, “provided such claim” was received within the applicable notice period) or (5) prohibition of any waiver of the notice requirement. To the extent the notice provision includes such language, a contractor can be without recourse even when the owner has actual knowledge of the claims or cannot show prejudice by the lack of notice. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jenifer B. Minsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Minsky may be contacted at jminsky@pecklaw.com

    Federal District Court Declines Invitation to Set Scope of Appraisal

    January 18, 2021 —
    In Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Harrods Eastbelt, Ltd., No. CV H-20-2405, 2020 WL 7632250 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas addressed a request to set the scope of an appraisal by requiring the appraisers to use a specific format for the appraisal. At issue was a claim for damages to three insured buildings allegedly damaged during Tropical Storm Imelda. The insurer had denied coverage based on the asserted lack of wind-created openings as required for coverage under the policy. Rather, the insurer took the position that the interior leaks were caused by a number of excluded causes including long-term weathering, wear and tear, age-related deterioration, ponding, and long-term leaks. In response to the denial of coverage, the insured invoked the appraisal provision of the policy which provided, among other things, that the “appraisers will state separately the value of the property and amount of loss.” Despite the language of the appraisal provision, the Insurer sought an order requiring the appraisers to state the amount of loss separately for each portion of the property in dispute and for each major building component including separate amounts of loss for roofs, exterior walls, windows, and interior water damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com