BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington construction forensic 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


    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    More on Duty to Defend a Subcontractor

    Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

    Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)

    House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

    COVID-19 Damages and Time Recovery: Contract Checklist and Analysis

    ASCE Statement on Calls to Suspend the Federal Gas Tax

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in 2019 Edition of Who’s Who Legal

    Gilbane Project Exec Completes His Mission Against the Odds

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Subcontractor Strength Will Drive Industry’s Ability to Meet Demand, Overcome Challenges

    Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

    Supreme Court Opens Door for Challenges to Older Federal Regulations

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

    Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    Congratulations 2019 DE, NJ and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Avoid a Derailed Settlement in Construction

    EPA Looks to Reduce Embodied Carbon in Materials With $160M in Grants

    High Court Case Review Frees Jailed Buffalo Billions Contractor CEO

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.

    Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    When Business is Personal: Negligent and Intentional Interference Claims

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    Quick Note: Unenforceable Language in Arbitration Provision

    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!

    Homeowner may pursue negligence claim for construction defect, Oregon Supreme Court holds

    $31.5M Settlement Reached in Contract Dispute between Judlau and the Illinois Tollway
    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

    Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

    July 13, 2020 —
    An Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage. In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:
    Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.
    Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.
    Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.
    (Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    February 28, 2018 —
    The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs monetary and non-monetary disputes arising out of contracts or implied-in-fact contracts between the federal government and contractors. Because the CDA is an exclusive remedy, it is important that contractors be wary of the many pitfalls that may be encountered by a contractor seeking to assert a claim against the government under the CDA. The pitfalls faced by a contractor under the CDA can arise before a contractor becomes aware of a potential claim. Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 43.204(c), a contracting officer should include in any supplemental agreement, including any change order, a Contractor’s Statement of Release which requires a contractor to execute a broad release of the government from any and all liability under the contract. As a result of this FAR provision, in executing a routine change order, a contractor may inadvertently release its right to pursue a potential claim under the CDA. A contractor should always review any release language prior to executing a supplemental agreement or change order with the government. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
    Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    August 17, 2011 —

    Coverage was denied under the policy’s condominium exclusion in California Traditions, Inc. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co.,2011 Cal. App.LEXIS912 (Cal. Ct. App., ordered published July 11, 2011).

    California Traditions was the developer and general contractor for a housing development. California Traditions subcontracted with Ja-Con to perform the rough framing work for 30 residential units. The project had 146 separate residences that were freestanding with no shared walls, roof, halls, or plumbing or electrical lines. To allow a higher density development, the project was developed, marketed and sold as condominiums.

    The purchaser of one of the units filed a complaint against California Traditions alleging property damage from the defective construction. California Traditions cross-complained against Ja-Con.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    January 09, 2015 —
    Michael J. Furbush and Thomas P. Wert of Roetzel & Andress discussed Florida’s House Bill 87, which proposes to “substantially overhaul Florida’s Construction Defect Act, Chapter 558, requiring property owners to provide more detailed notice of the alleged defect and imposing sanctions on property owners who make frivolous claims.” Representative Kathleen Passidomo sponsored the bill, which “requires claimants to provide additional details about the alleged defect in the notice of claim, including the specific location of each alleged defect, and the specific provisions of the building code, plans, or specifications that serve as the basis of the defect claim. The failure to include this information in the notice of claim would be considered prima facie evidence of a defective notice.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial

    March 04, 2024 —
    Are you crazy? That is what I asked my client when he asked me to conduct a jury trial remotely. At the time, I did not even know if it was feasible. While I figured that most courtrooms had remote capabilities, I was not sure whether anyone was crazy enough to do a jury trial remotely and whether a courtroom would accommodate it. Would I be able to truly connect with the jurors? Would the jurors hold it against me that I am appearing remotely while they have to be there in person? I told my client that this was a terrible idea but that I would at least see if it was an option. At the Final Status Conference, the Court confirmed that it could accommodate a remote appearance for both the party and the party’s counsel and gave its permission to do so. It was also clear that I would be the only attorney exercising this option, and the judge remarked that this would be a first for him. Appearing remotely while other attorneys appear in person is not something I would normally consider. However, this case presented a unique set of circumstances. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Samuel Yu, Kahana Feld
    Ms. Yu may be contacted at syu@kahanafeld.com

    Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    October 28, 2024 —
    We are thrilled to announce that our very own Lisa Bondy Dunn has been recognized by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. This prestigious accolade is a testament to Lisa’s dedication, expertise, and unwavering commitment to achieving the best outcomes for our clients. Lisa, a Partner at Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell (“HHMR”), has long been a leader in construction defect litigation, defending builders, contractors, developers, and design professionals in Colorado’s complex legal landscape. Her deep understanding of the industry and her relentless pursuit of practical, cost-effective solutions have earned her the respect of peers, clients, insurers, mediators, arbitrators, and courts alike. As noted by Law Week Colorado: “For over two decades, Lisa Dunn has represented developers, contractors and subcontractors in construction-related disputes. Dunn has spoken across the country on construction and insurance matters, and she’s worked on several appellate cases during her career. She’s admitted in four states, and has consulted and represented some of the nation’s largest builders.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    September 20, 2017 —
    The Archdiocese failed to plead breach of contract against the County for failure to name the Archdiocese as an additional insured under the liability policy. Pachella v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2017 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 595 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Aug. 14, 2017). Richard and Pachella filed a complaint against the Archdiocese, alleging that Mrs. Pachella was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk outside of St. Patrick's Parish. At the time, the County was leasing St. Patrick's premises for use as an election polling place. The Archdiocese filed a third party complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract claims under a Lease Agreement between St. Patrick's and the County. 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

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    July 30, 2015 —
    Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com