BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington architect expert witnessSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington stucco expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Even Where Fraud and Contract Mix, Be Careful With Timing

    Beyond the COI: The Importance of an Owner's or Facilities Manager's Downstream Insurance Review Program

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    Default Should Never Be An Option

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

    Intellectual Property And Employment Law Best Practices: Are You Covering Your Bases In Protecting Construction-Related Trade Secrets?

    California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

    Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

    Roadway Contractor Owed Duty of Care to Driver Injured Outside of Construction Zone

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    Claims Against Broker Dismissed

    AAA Revises Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    White and Williams Recognized by BTI Consulting Group for Client Service

    Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

    Ex-Construction Firm That Bought a $75m Michelangelo to Delist

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    Construction Activity on the Upswing

    Hunton Insurance Coverage Group Ranked in National Tier 1 by US News & World Report

    Home-Building Climate Warms in U.S. as Weather Funk Lifts

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

    Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    What Counts as Adequate Opportunity to Cure?

    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

    Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions Into Waterlogged Miami?

    Construction is the Fastest Growing Industry in California

    Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

    Heavy Rains Cause Flooding, Mudslides in Japan

    Recent Amendments and Caselaw Affecting the Construction Industry in Texas

    Recommendations for Property Owners After A Hurricane: Submit a Claim

    Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

    When is an Indemnification Provision Unenforceable?

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Force Majeure Under the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Andrea DeField and Cary D. Steklof, Recognized as Legal Elite

    North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

    As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller

    St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.
    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

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    December 23, 2023 —
    I have often “mused” on the need to have a good solid construction contract at the beginning of a project. While this is always true, it is particularly true in residential contracting where a homeowner may or may not know the construction process or have experience with large scale construction. Often you, as a construction general contractor, are providing the first large scale construction that the homeowner has experienced. For this reason, through meetings and the construction contract, setting expectations early and often is key. As a side note to this need to set expectations, the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) and the Virginia General Assembly require certain clauses to be in every residential construction contract. DPOR strictly enforces these contractual items and failure to put them in your contracts can lead to fines, penalties and possibly even revocation of a contractor’s license. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic

    April 13, 2020 —
    As the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event. Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract. Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party. California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.) If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party. Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts. Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
    Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

    April 15, 2015 —
    Builders FirstSource Inc., a Dallas-based maker of materials for new homes, rose the most on record after saying it agreed to buy competitor ProBuild Holdings LLC for $1.63 billion. ProBuild, based in Denver, operates about 400 lumber and building product distribution, manufacturing and assembly centers serving 40 U.S. states, according to a statement Monday. The companies had 2014 combined revenue of $6.1 billion. Builders FirstSource surged 68 percent to $11.57. It was the biggest one-day gain ever for the shares, which began trading in June 2005. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    July 30, 2014 —
    Banks are handing out mortgages of as much as $10 million to the wealthy in record numbers while first-time homebuyers struggle to get loans. Erin Gorman, managing director at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., said she’s fielding more requests for home loans of at least $2 million than ever before. She recently provided a mortgage of more than $6 million for a client’s purchase of a second property in Colorado. “These high-net-worth borrowers do act differently than first-time buyers, who borrow because they have to,” said Gorman, who serves as the national mortgage sales director at Bank of New York Mellon’s wealth management group based in Boston. “High-net-worth borrowers don’t have to borrow. They choose to, so they’re very strategic about what, why, and when they borrow.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg
    Ms. Leondis may be contacted at aleondis@bloomberg.net

    California Supreme Court Rejects Third Exception to Privette Doctrine

    July 03, 2022 —
    Walnut Creek, Calif. (May 25, 2022) - In Gonzalez v. Mathis (August 19, 2021) 12 Cal. 5th 29, the California Supreme Court considered whether to create a third exception to the Privette Doctrine specific to known hazards on a worksite, when a contractor cannot remedy the hazard by taking reasonable safety precautions to protect against it. Privette Background Under the Privette Doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor generally cannot be liable for injuries sustained by the independent contractor or its employees while on the job. This is due to the “strong presumption” that the hirer delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to the independent contractor. See Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689. Since the Privette ruling in 1993, the California Supreme Court has identified two circumstances in which the presumption may be overcome. First, the hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 198, 213. Second, a landowner who hires an independent contractor may be liable if the landowner knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard to the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal. 4th 659, 664. Here, in the Gonzalez case, the court considered whether a landowner could be liable for known hazards on the property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    November 26, 2014 —
    I’ve been writing for the CEB – the Continuing Education of the Bar – which publishes legal practice guides for lawyers for some time now. But I don’t think I’ve been quite as excited to write for the CEB than writing for its publication, California Mechanics Liens and Related Construction Remedies, for the first time this year. Particularly, since it’s one of the first publications I used as a young lawyer to learn about construction law, and still use today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Denver Court Rules that Condo Owners Must Follow Arbitration Agreement

    November 07, 2012 —
    Prior to initiating a construction defect lawsuit, the Glass House Residential Association voted to invalidate the arbitration agreement that had been written into its declaration and bylaws by the developer and general contractor. After the association started their construction defect claims, the developer and general contractor argued that the case must go to arbitration, as the arbitration clause contained a provision that it could not be altered without the agreement of the developer and general contractor. The Denver District Court has ruled against that association, determining that the res triction was not in violation of Colorado condominium law. And, as a post from Polsinelli Shughart PC on JDSupra notes, the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act encourages the use of arbitration procedures to settle disputes. The CCIOA does prohibit “certain restrictions on the homeowners association’s ability to amend the condominium declarations,” however, preserving an arbitration agreement is not one of them. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    July 31, 2013 —
    Belgravia Condominium Association, a group of condo owners in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have secured a $5.05 million judgment against the contractor who converted their 1902 building into condominiums. The suit alleged that the developers and engineers failed to disclose structural problems to the condominium buyers. One issue at hand was the maintenance of the building’s façade which has historic status. Repairs to the façade alone are expected to require $2 million. Ronald Williams, the lawyer for the association, noted that the iron canopy at the entrance had begun to break away and fall even before the condominium association came into being. The decision isn’t yet final, as the developer has an opportunity to appeal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of