BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestrationSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness public projectsSeattle Washington building expert
    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


    Notice of Claim Sufficient to Invoke Coverage

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly

    ASCE's Architectural Engineering Institute Announces Winners of 2021 AEI Professional Project Award

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Pre-Covid Construction Contracts Unworkable as Costs Surge, Webuild Says

    Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/18/24) – Cannabis’ Effect on Real Estate, AI’s Capabilities for Fund Managers and CRE’s Exposure on Large Banks

    Virtual Jury Trials: The Next Wave of Remote Legal Practice

    Gordie Howe Bridge Project Team Looks for a Third Period Comeback

    Partner John Toohey is Nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!

    Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

    Feds to Repair Damage From Halted Border Wall Work in Texas, California

    Standard For Evaluating Delay – Directly from An Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeal’s Opinion

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

    Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

    David M. McLain to Speak at the CLM Claims College - School of Construction - Scholarships Available

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023

    Public-Private Partnerships: When Will Reality Meet the Promise?

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”

    Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    The Miller Act Explained

    Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case

    The Registered Agent Advantage

    FDOT Races to Re-Open Storm-Damaged Pensacola Bridge

    Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

    In Pennsylvania, Contractors Can Be Liable to Third Parties for Obvious Defects in Completed Work

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Hundreds Celebrated the Grand Opening of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California Riverside Construction Training Center

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    CGL Policy May Not Cover Cybersecurity and Data-Related Losses

    Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

    Quick Note: Not In Contract With The Owner? Serve A Notice To Owner.

    Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver
    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

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    October 02, 2015 —
    In Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida considered whether a party to a contract, in order to be released from liability for its own negligence, needs to include an express reference to negligence in an exculpatory clause. The court held that, unlike an indemnification clause, so long as the language in an exculpatory clause is clear, the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not, for that reason alone, render the exculpatory clause ineffective. Background Give Kids the World, Inc. (“GKW”) is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at GKW’s resort village. To use the resort, vacationers have to fill out an application. Stacy and Eric Sanislo filled out an application to bring their seriously ill child to the village for a vacation and GKW accepted their application. Upon arriving at the resort, the Sanislos filled out a liability release form. Reprinted courtesy of Edward Jaeger, White and Williams LLP and William Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

    July 22, 2024 —
    Alternative capital is a broad term for financing provided by institutions or firms that typically fall outside of the purview of the larger, regulated institutions (i.e., not traditional banks). While these funding sources may not always be the first option for many businesses, alternative lending is a perfect option for many small and mid-sized capital-intensive companies, like construction companies, which often require fast access to capital that is incompatible with the stringent and laborious processes imposed by traditional banks. Construction companies should take a closer look at alternative financing, understand its benefits, and evaluate its usefulness for achieving their unique funding requirements. REALITY 1: ALTERNATIVE LENDING IS SAFE AND PROVEN Private lending has been around for a long time, and has become increasingly common since the 1990s, when major consolidation took place in the banking industry. As the large, consolidated banks set their sights on providing loans to large enterprises, they left a gap in the small and mid-size market that was filled by alternative lenders. By 2000, alternative lenders had overtaken traditional banks for the majority of corporate loans. Stricter regulation of banks following the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 intensified underwriting standards for bank loans and further diminished banks’ appetites for SMB lending. Reprinted courtesy of Warren Miller, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    January 13, 2020 —
    In Barrett v. Berry Contr. L.P., No. 13-18-00498-CV, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 8811, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered, among other things, the procedural timing requirements of filing a certificate of merit in conjunction with a complaint. The court concluded that the proper reading of the statute requires a plaintiff to file a certificate of merit with the first complaint naming the defendant as a party. In Barrett, after sustaining injuries while working at a refinery, David Barrett (Barrett) filed suit against Berry Contracting, LP and Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd. on July 6, 2016. In Barrett’s first amended complaint, which he filed on August 23, 2016, Barrett added Govind Development, LLC (Govind) as another defendant. Barrett subsequently filed a second amended complaint (omitting Govind) and, on December 27, 2017, shortly before the statute of limitations ran, a third amended complaint (reasserting claims against Govind). On January 28, 2018, after the statute of limitations period ran, Barrett filed a certificate of merit. Govind filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Barrett violated the statute that required a certificate of merit to be filed with the complaint, Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code §150.002.
    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002(a) states, In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, a claimant shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect or registered professional land surveyor…
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot

    June 12, 2023 —
    This is a brief roundup of recent federal court environmental and regulatory law decisions from the federal courts over the past few months, including the much anticipated ruling in Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency Last year, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision curtailing some of the EPA’s regulatory powers in the Clean Air Act in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. On May 25, 2023, the Court limited EPA’s—and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authority—under the Clean Water Act. This, too, is a major environmental ruling. The Court held that the EPA could not classify the wetlands located on the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett as “Waters of the United States” on the basis of the “significant nexus” test devised by Justice Kennedy in his separate opinion in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States. Accordingly, the Court unanimously held that their property was not subject to the EPA’s or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting and enforcement power. In 2004, the Sacketts purchased a small lot near Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho, on which to build a home. As related by Justice Alito, once they began to fill in their property with dirt and rocks, they were notified by EPA that their backfilling operation violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) because they were affecting protected wetlands. The Sacketts challenged this action, thus beginning a long legal battle with EPA and the federal government. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the federal government’s regulatory authority over these wetlands, holding that the CWA covers “adjacent” wetlands having a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. The Supreme Court decided that this case was suitable for determining whether the Sackett’s wetlands are “waters of the United States” and thus subject to the permitting and regulatory enforcement powers of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers. 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

    Insurance and Your Roof

    November 13, 2013 —
    Those seeking home insurance should look up. Bankrate points out that the type of roof a home has can affect how much it costs to insure it. “The roof is the first layer that wind, hail, wildfire and other hazards really begin to act on,” Tim Reinhold, the chief engineer at the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, told the site. For insurers, the most problematic roof type is probably wood shakes. “Some companies won’t even insure certain roof types, such as wood shakes, in high fire-risk areas,” said Robert Hunter, the director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Not that other roof types are problem-free. Metal roofs can corrode, particularly when two different metals touch. Shingles age more quickly than other roof types, becoming brittle, and they can blow off in high winds. Tile roofs are expensive, something insurers are guaranteed to factor into the insurance rates. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ex-Detroit Demolition Official Sentenced for Taking Bribes

    November 24, 2019 —
    Aradondo Haskins, a former Detroit demolition projects official, has been sentenced to a year in federal prison for accepting $26,500 in bribes from contractors and rigging bids to tear down homes in a federally funded demolition program. U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts handed down the sentence on Sept. 23 and ordered Haskins to pay a $5,000 fine and forfeit bribes he took while employed by demolition contractor Adamo Group and by the city. The charges against Haskins were unsealed on April 8, shortly before he pled guilty. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

    October 21, 2024 —
    Similar to the changes made by the Washington Legislature last year, the Oregon Legislature recently changed its retention law. Oregon public works agencies and large commercial project owners are now required to accept surety bonds in lieu of withholding retainage on construction projects. There is also no longer a requirement to deposit retention funds in an interest-bearing escrow account. The owner or public agency must accept the bond in lieu of retainage unless specific grounds exist. For example, public agencies must find there is “good cause” for rejection of the bond based on the “unique project circumstances. Private owners have less discretion to reject a bond and if the bond meets the statutory requirements, per ORS 701.435(1)(a) “the owner and lender shall accept” the bond “in lieu of all or any portion of the retainage…” Courts have not analyzed when “good cause” exists for public agencies to reject bonds or exactly what will allow a private owner to reject a bond. However, an agency or owner cannot have a general policy to reject retention bonds. The statute does not provide next steps if the contractor disagrees with a decision to reject the bond. It may be necessary to proceed under the contract’s dispute resolution procedure or it may be more appropriate to take the issue directly to the courts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

    Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects

    October 17, 2022 —
    Can a subsequent purchaser pursue construction defect claims relating to the original construction of the property? This was the threshold issue on a motion for summary judgment by a drywall manufacturer against a subsequent purchaser of a home in Karpel v. Knauf Gips KG, 2022 WL 4366946 (S.D. Fla. 2022). This matter deals with the defective Chinese drywall that was installed in homes years ago. The plaintiffs, which were subsequent purchasers of a home, sued the manufacturer of the defective drywall for various theories including negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, unjust enrichment, and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The trial court noted, from the onset, that Florida does NOT have a subsequent purchaser rule that prohibits subsequent purchasers from asserting construction defect claims. With this consideration in mind, the trial court went through the claims the plaintiff, as a subsequent purchaser, asserted against the manufacturer to determine whether they were viable claims as a matter of law. Negligence Claim The trial court found that a subsequent purchaser could sue in negligence. “Florida courts have long allowed subsequent purchasers to sue for negligence including in construction defect litigation.” Karpel, supra, at *2. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com