BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington contractor expert witnessSeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington construction code expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington slope failure 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


    Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

    Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

    Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better

    Florida Death Toll Rises by Three, Reaching 27 as Search Resumes

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

    Janus v. AFSCME

    Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    Texas and Georgia Are Paying the Price for Sprawl

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Midview Board of Education Lawsuit Over Construction Defect Repairs

    Are Mechanic’s Liens the Be All End All of Construction Collections?

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

    Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects

    Wood Product Rotting in New Energy Efficient Homes

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    Drone Use On Construction Projects

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    Build Me A Building As Fast As You Can

    The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong

    Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction

    Contractors: Consult Your Insurance Broker Regarding Your CGL Policy

    US Civil Rights Tools Are Failing the Most Polluted Black Communities

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    Ninth Circuit Court Weighs In On Insurance Coverage For COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/11/23) – Construction Tech, Housing Market Confidence, and Decarbonization

    California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    After 60 Years, I-95 Is Complete

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

    That’s What I have Insurance For, Right?

    Subcontractors Eye 2022 with Guarded Optimism

    Australia Warns of Multi-Billion Dollar Climate Disaster Costs

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period
    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

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    November 19, 2021 —
    On September 14, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a City which operated a park containing a natural bathing spring in Sarasota County, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff went to the park, entered the spring without incident, swam for more than an hour, then exited the spring and was returning to the area where she had stored her belongings when she slipped and fell on mud and grass, sustaining an open angulated fracture of her right tibia and fibula. The Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital where she underwent open reduction, internal fixation surgery on her right leg which consisted of implantation of a metal rod into the medullary cavity of her tibia that was secured by two proximal and two distal interlocking screws. She was in the hospital for four days. Upon discharge, the Plaintiff was placed in a walking boot and confined to a wheelchair for several months. The Plaintiff incurred nearly $100,000 in medical expenses. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the City claiming it failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The Plaintiff also alleged that the City failed to warn her that the area where she had stored her belongings had become saturated and slippery proximately causing her fall and resulting injuries. After the close of discovery, Mr. Guldalian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the City arguing the wet grass and mud upon which the Plaintiff fell and injured herself was a byproduct of patrons going in and out of the water and walking to and from the area where they stored their belongings, was open and obvious, and did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law. Citing to case law from the Florida Supreme Court which held that it is common knowledge that walks adjacent to, leading to, or surrounding a bathing area generally have water constantly thrown upon them and are in a slippery condition, as well as deposition testimony from the Plaintiff confirming she had been swimming at the spring for the past eighteen plus years and was “very familiar” with the park, the spring, and the area where she normally stored her belongings, Mr. Guldalian argued that some injury-causing conditions, like wet grass and mud surrounding a swimming area, are simply so open and so obvious that they cannot be held, as a matter of law, to give rise to liability as dangerous conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    September 30, 2011 —

    The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in Creswell v. Estate of Howe, a case in which a woman bought a home and then sued the seller’s estate, both sets of real estate agents, and the homeowner’s association over construction defects. A district court ruled against her, granting summary judgment to the other parties.

    After buying a townhome “as is,” Catherine Creswell claims to have shared a thought with her agent that the homeowners association was, in the words of her agent, “trying to hide something.” Later, Creswell found that a few days before her closing, the board had discussed problems with “roofs, siding and soundproofing of the townhomes.” The court noted that “it was clear from the documents that appellant [Creswell] received that the association had known about various construction defects for many years, some of which affected [her] unit.”

    Creswell initially sued the estate, the man who negotiated the sale for his mother’s estate, the real estate companies and the agents involved, the homeowners association, and four board members. Later she sued for punitive damages, dropped a claim for interference with contractual relations, and dismissed her claims against the individual board members. The court dismissed all of Creswell’s claims awarding costs to those she sued.

    The appeals court has affirmed the decision of lower court, noting that Creswell “did not provide us with any argument why the district court erred in dismissing her unjust-enrichment, breach of contract, or rescission claims against the various respondents.” Nor did she provide evidence to support her claims of “breach of duty, fraud, and violation of consumer protection statutes.”

    The court noted that Creswell could not sue the homeowners association over the construction defects because she “failed to prove that she was damaged by the association’s nondisclosure.” The court noted that “there are no damages in this case,” as Creswell “was never assessed for any repairs, she had not paid anything out-of-pocket for repairs, and she has presented no evidence that the value of her individual unit has declined because of the alleged undisclosed construction defects.”

    The court granted the other parties motion to dismiss and denied Creswell’s motion to supplement the record. Costs were awarded to the respondents.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    November 07, 2012 —
    In Truppi v. Pasco Engineering, John Quattro sued Property Management Contractors, Inc. over construction defects in William Truppi’s home. All parties are named in the suit. The California Court of Appeals ruled that Property Management Contractors, Inc. (PMCI) could not compel Mr. Quattro to arbitration. The background of the case involves two houses built in Encinitas, California by PCMI: one for Mr. Truppi at 560 Neptune, and one for Mr. Quattro at 566 Neptune. Both contracts contained an arbitration provision. Mr. Quattro signed the contract for his residence and Mr. Truppi signed the other. Mr. Quattro then sued PCMI and its principal, William Gregory. Mr. Quattro claimed to be the true contracting party for the 560 Neptune residence and a third party beneficiary of the contract Mr. Truppi signed, and stated that PCMI was aware of this. PCMI in a demurrer stated that Quattro “had only a ‘prospective beneficial interest in the property upon its eventual sale or lease.’” Mr. Quattro amended his complaint to account for the issues raised by PCMI. The court rejected PCMI’s demurrer to the amended complaint. Finally, PCMI and Gregory asserted that Quattro was “not the real party in interest” and could not sue. PCMI continues to assert that Quattro lacks standing, but their attorney sent Quattro an e-mail stating, “While my client disputes that you are a party, and that you lack standing to assert the claim, to the extent you do so I believe you are obligated to proceed by way of arbitration.” The court did not cover the issue of Quattro’s standing in the case, only if he could be compelled to arbitration. The court affirmed the lower court’s finding that Quattro could not be compelled to arbitrate the construction defect claim as neither he nor Gregory signed the contract in an individual capacity. Further, the court noted that PCMI and Gregory “denied the existence of an agreement between themselves and Quattro on the 560 contract,” and cannot compel arbitration on a non-existent agreement. And while non-signatories can, in some situations be compelled to arbitrate, the court found that “these cases are inapplicable because here they seek to have the alleged third party beneficiary (Quattro) compelled by a nonsignatory (Gregory).” The arbitration clause in question “expressly limited its application to persons or entities that signed the 560 contract.” As Mr. Quattro was not a signatory to that agreement, the court found that he could not be held to its arbitration provision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/26/23) – The Energy Transition and a Bit of Brick-and-Mortar Blues

    May 01, 2023 —
    In today’s roundup, Americans can buy homes with bitcoin, new tech aims to engineer a novel building material, federal investments boost the coastline (and construction sales), and more. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    October 11, 2017 —
    This month we share some cautionary tales for employers in the construction industry. During the past several months the California Labor Commissioner has cited or filed suit against several construction companies. In one investigation, a general contractor was held equally responsible for wages owed by a subcontractor to its employees. The lesson learned from these stories is that now more than ever it is important to have in place proper wage and hour practices and to conduct periodic audits of those practices, including those of your lower tiered contractors, preferably by experienced legal counsel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    September 03, 2014 —
    Prices for previously owned Manhattan condominiums rose to a record last month even as an increase in the supply of units eased competition among buyers. An index of resale prices climbed 1.1 percent from June to reach the highest level in data going back to 1995, StreetEasy.com, a New York real estate website, said in a report today. The inventory of condos on the market grew 5.4 percent from a year earlier, the biggest annual gain since October 2009. The market is still tight, with the number of available condos about 16 percent below the five-year average for Manhattan. That will continue to drive up prices, according to StreetEasy, which projects a 0.4 percent increase for August. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
    Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    August 26, 2015 —
    The court determined that the project owner's general partner was not an additional insured entitled to a defense and indemnity against claims for construction defects. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v,. Cypress Fairway Condo. Ass'n, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94012 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2015). Construction of the Cypress Fairway Condominium project took place in 1999 and 2000. Cypress Fairway Ltd. ("Cypress") was the owner and Vineland Partners , LLC ("Vineland") was its general partner. The general contractor was Winter Park Construction Company ("WPC"). Water intrusion and property damage occurred, but it was unclear when or whether the damage was known. Cypress' expert indicated that the damage began shortly after the end of construction. In 2004, the complex was sold to Cypress Madison Ownership Company. In 2010, the Cypress Fairway Condominium Association sued Cypress and Vineland. Count V of the underlying complaint asserted there were construction defects that Cypress and Vineland were responsible for when they owned and managed the project. Count VI alleged that Cypress and Vineland negligently supplied information which the Association relied on for the purchase of the condominiums. 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

    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    September 30, 2011 —

    After seeing their $1 million jury award overturned on appeal by a judge who called the award “against the weight of evidence and likely due to misapprehension, confusion or passion,” Kathryn and Christian Culley are seeking to have him removed from the case. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has rejected their claim.

    The Culleys claim that Judge Thomas R. Murtagh’s decision was influence by him membership in the Andover Country Club which is represented by the opposing counsel in their construction defect case. Justice Margot G. Botsford had denied the Culley’s request, ruling that they had other remedies available to them.

    The SJC noted in their ruling that if the Culleys are alleging judicial misconduct a request must be made to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Their lawyer plans to file a new motion for recusal with the SJC.

    Read the full story…

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