BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

    The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

    Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

    Points on Negotiating Construction Claims

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant

    A Court-Side Seat: As SCOTUS Decides Another Regulatory “Takings” Case, a Flurry of Action at EPA

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    New York Appellate Division: Second Department Contradicts First Department, Denying Insurer's Recoupment of Defense Costs for Uncovered Claims

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    Contractor Allegedly Stole Construction Materials

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Out of Eastern Europe, a Window Into the Post-Pandemic Office

    OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled

    A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Everyone’s Working From Home Due to the Coronavirus – Is There Insurance Coverage for a Data Breach?

    The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

    Is it time for a summer tune-up?

    House Approves $715B Transportation and Water Infrastructure Bill

    WSHB Secures Victory in Construction Defect Case: Contractor Wins Bench Trial

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

    Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Texas Supreme Court Rules That Subsequent Purchaser of Home Is Bound by Original Homeowner’s Arbitration Agreement With Builder

    Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Recognized Among The Top 50 Construction Law Firms TM of 2024 by Construction Executive

    Indiana Appellate Court Allows Third-Party Spoliation Claim to Proceed

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    Construction Delays: Which Method Should Be Used to Calculate Delay?

    Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

    Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Seattle's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    July 16, 2014 —
    Carl A. Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP in his Lexology article, stated that “it is now official and final: Alabama is no longer one of the outlier jurisdictions on the issue of coverage for faulty workmanship.” In the case Owners v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, in September 2013 the Alabama Supreme Court had “sided with insurers in holding that construction defects can never be accidental and, therefore, can never be covered by Commercial General Liability insurance.” However, in March “the Court withdrew that decision and reversed course,” holding “that faulty workmanship can, in fact, constitute a covered ‘occurrence,’ which CGL policies define as ‘an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to the same generally harmful conditions.’” “This is obviously good news for construction contractors that do work in the state of Alabama,” Salisbury stated. “It is also good news for policyholders in general as it continues the strong trend among state high courts that have been finding in favor of coverage in this important area of insurance law.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    August 17, 2011 —

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

    Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

    In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

    In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

    Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

    In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

    Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

    The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

    Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

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

    April 01, 2011 —

    The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

    The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.

    The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”

    S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

    Read the full story...

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

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    February 16, 2017 —
    The contractor on a project files a bankruptcy case. How should the property owner and subcontractors proceed? When a party to a contract files bankruptcy, the other party’s actions are constrained by the bankruptcy code. Types of Bankruptcies The typical bankruptcy case involves a chapter 7 complete liquidation, chapter 13 reorganization for an individual, or a chapter 11 reorganization or liquidation. In a chapter 7 the business ceases to operate and a panel trustee is appointed immediately upon the filing of the case. The chapter 7 trustee’s duties are to liquidate assets for the benefit of creditors and to prosecute litigation that can result in assets for the creditors. In a chapter 13, the individual debtor continues to operate, and there is a trustee, but the trustee’s roll is limited to reviewing the chapter 13 plan and making sure that the plan is performed. In a chapter 11, the debtor retains control of its assets and continues to operate its business until a plan is confirmed. During the chapter 11 period before a plan is approved, the debtor will decide which contracts it wants to assume or reject, all while operating the company and preparing a plan. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tracy Green, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Ms. Green may be contacted at tgreen@wendel.com

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    November 06, 2018 —
    The State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions. Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis and Ashley Kellgren Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Gary Bague Elected Chairman of ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    November 17, 2016 —
    During ALFA International’s (ALFA) Annual Business Meeting on October 28, the membership elected Gary Bague to serve as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Gary’s term as Chairman will run through October 2018. After he completes his term as Chairman, Gary will continue to serve on the Board of Directors as Chair Emeritus for two years. The Board of Directors is responsible for establishing all policies relative to accomplishing the purposes of ALFA, recommending the Corporation’s budget to the Membership, approving applications for membership, supervising the work of the Chief Executive Officer, and otherwise managing the business and affairs of ALFA. As Chairman of the Board, Gary will preside over all meetings of the Executive Committee, Board of Directors, and Membership. He will also serve as an ex officio member of all committees, and will have the duties of a president of the Corporation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gary A. Bague, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Bague may be contacted at gbague@hbblaw.com

    New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

    November 23, 2020 —
    In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    April 10, 2023 —
    In the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement. In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com