BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting engineersSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness consultantSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineer
    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


    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    Sustainable, Versatile and Resilient: How Mass Timber Construction Can Shake Up the Building Industry

    Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group

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

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial

    When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites

    When Brad Pitt Tried to Save the Lower Ninth Ward

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

    Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

    Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay

    Law Firm's Business Income, Civil Authority Claim Due to Hurricanes Survives Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Encinitas Office Obtains Complete Defense Verdict Including Attorney Fees and Costs After Ten Day Construction Arbitration

    NARI Addresses Construction Defect Claim Issues for Remodeling Contractors

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    Mississippi River Spends 40 Days At Flood Stage, Mayors Push for Infrastructure Funding

    The Pitfalls of Oral Agreements in the Construction Industry

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

    Judge Dismisses Suit to Block Construction of Obama Center

    Why Ethiopia’s $5 Billion Dam Has Riled Its Neighbors

    UK Construction Output Rises Unexpectedly to Strongest Since May

    In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term

    Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines

    An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    BHA Has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports NCHV and Final Salute at 2017 WCC Seminar

    Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

    Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

    Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

    The G2G Year in Review: 2019

    Examining Best Practices for Fire Protection of Critical Systems in Buildings
    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

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    April 02, 2014 —
    In a press release published on PRWEB, the national law firm Wilson Elser announced “that Bill Hake, founder of Bay Area–based Hake Law, and 15 members of his team, including attorneys, paralegals and staff, have joined the firm’s San Francisco office effective April 1.” Specifically, “Wilson Elser has added a total of four partners from Hake Law, including Bill Hake, Melissa Ippolito, Nicolas Martin and Lucy Hoff, and four associates, including Gardiner McKleroy, Jeremy Berla, Molly Friend and Whitney Barnecut, bringing the total attorney headcount in Wilson Elser’s San Francisco office to 40.” According to the release, “Hake Law was primarily a defense litigation firm focused on product liability, construction defects, D&O, catastrophic injury, toxic tort, white collar criminal, class action and complex litigation defense.” Wilson Elser is a “full-service and leading defense litigation law firm… with nearly 800 attorneys in 25 offices in the United States, one in London and through a network of affiliates in key regions globally.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

    February 05, 2014 —
    According to a press release on PR Newswire, Columbus, Ohio law firm McDonalds Hopkins LLC is merging with firm Welin, O’Shaughnessy + Scheaf. McDonalds Hopkins LLC is “a business advisory and advocacy law firm with a more than 80-year history.” They are looking to expand their “Columbus presence” by the merger with “the boutique firm” that specializes in construction law, complex business litigation and oil and gas litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington

    September 05, 2022 —
    Ever since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim. Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:
    • Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
    • Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
    • Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
    • Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
    • Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.
    Reprinted courtesy of Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    December 09, 2011 —

    Applying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit found a duty to defend construction defect claims where the faulty workmanship was unintentional. Greystone Const. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22053 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). A prior post [here] discussed the Tenth Circuit’s certified question to the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter, a request that was rejected by the Colorado court.

    In two underlying cases, Greystone was sued by the homeowner for damage caused to the foundation by soil expansion. In both cases, the actual construction was performed by subcontractors. Further, in neither case was the damage intended or anticipated. Nevertheless, National Union refused to defend, contending property damage resulting from faulty construction was not an occurrence.

    Relying on a Colorado Court of Appeals case, General Security Indemn. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), the district court granted summary judgment to National Union.

    On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether Colorado legislation enacted to overturn General Security could be applied retroactively. The statute, section 13-20-808, provided courts "shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured."

    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

    "Occurrence" May Include Intentional Acts In Montana

    June 22, 2016 —
    The Montana Supreme Court found that policy language defining "accidents may include intentional acts." Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Fisher Builders, Inc., 2016 Mont. LEXIS 269 (Mont. Sup. Ct. April 19, 2016). Jerry and Karen Slack hired Fisher Builders to build a remodeled home located on the site of their home at Flathead Lake. The existing home was an aged vacation home. The County zoning regulations required the remodeled home to incorporate the existing structure. The permit issued to the Slacks required the existing deck to remain unchanged. Fisher elevated the existing home structure on steel beams to pour a new foundation. Fisher began to dismantle the walls while the structure was resting on the beams, and found an infestation of carpenter ants. The ant-infested planks were cut out, apparently in order to salvage what usable materials he could from the remaining structure. The ant-infested boards were subsequently burned. Eventually, the deck collapsed. 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

    How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants

    May 20, 2019 —
    It is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien. Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

    A Court-Side Seat: Flint Failures, Missed Deadlines, Toad Work and a Game of Chicken

    October 05, 2020 —
    The last few weeks have yielded a number of interesting developments in the Federal courts. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL In re Flint Water Cases Several local and State of Michigan officials, including the former governor, requested dismissal from the civil litigation seeking damages for the massive failure of Flint, Michigan’s public drinking water system. On August 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs, residents of Flint, have successfully pled a case that the conduct of the defendants so “shocked the conscience” that a claim for a violation of their substantive due process rights was appropriately alleged. The defendants, including the former governor, argued that they were entitled to a qualified immunity defense. The court rejected this argument on the basis of the earlier decisions made by the court in this matter. Judge Sutton concurred because he was bound by this precedent, but remarked that the evidence for the governor’s culpability was very thin; he was not intimately connected to the extraordinary error in judgment. The majority was very upset with this concurrence as indicted by their own opinion. 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

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    June 11, 2014 —
    Kumagai Gumi Co. (1861), a Japanese construction company, fell the most in four months after saying an apartment complex it had built has defects. The shares dropped 5.7 percent to 264 yen at the close of trading in Tokyo, the biggest decline since Feb. 4. Construction flaws in supporting pillars were found in the building completed in March 2003 in Yokohama City, south of Tokyo, the company said in a statement through the stock exchange today. The residents have been asked to relocate to temporary shelters and further investigation is required, it said. “This is a big negative for Kumagai’s reputation and it may hurt the company’s future earnings,” said Yoji Otani, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG in Tokyo. The latest defect comes after Mitsubishi Estate Co. (8802) said in March it will rebuild a residential complex, constructed by Kajima Corp. (1812), in central Tokyo, after defects were found. Mitsui Fudosan Co. (8801) said it would repair some parts of an apartment building in Kawasaki City after the builder Shimizu Corp. (1803) found cracks in the concrete of some columns in April. Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Buckland may be contacted at kbuckland1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu and Kevin Buckland, Bloomberg