BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building expertSeattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington architect 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


    Legal Risks of Green Building

    Re-Thinking the One-Sided Contract: Considerations for a More Balanced Approach to Contracting

    A New Statute of Limitations on Construction Claims by VA State Agencies?

    Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered

    Construction Defects Lead to “A Pretty Shocking Sight”

    Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

    Hunton Insurance Practice Again Scores “Tier 1” National Ranking in US News Best Law Firm Rankings

    Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal

    Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Out of the Black

    Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

    Trump Signs $2-Trillion Stimulus Bill for COVID-19 Emergency

    Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

    United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

    ASCE Statement On White House "Accelerating Infrastructure Summit"

    Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment

    The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?

    Using the Prevention Doctrine

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

    Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

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

    New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    Mass Timber Reduces Construction’s Carbon Footprint, But Introduces New Risk Scenarios

    What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    Make Your Business Great Again: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers

    When Customers Don’t Pay: What Can a Construction Business Do

    Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

    The Texas Storm – Guidance for Contractors

    Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

    Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

    New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain

    China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

    Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    Contract Void Ab Initio: Key Insights into the KBR vs. Corps of Engineers Affirmative Defense

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016
    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

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    May 18, 2011 —

    It takes more than a hard hat, but safety checks, a good policy and a smart contract might save you some problems.If you are a general contractor, you will want to pay close attention to this article. A new Washington appellate decision showcases a general contractor’s liability to subcontractors who are injured on the job, when security barriers fail. But can a general limit this liability? Will its contract help?

    In Wrought Corporation, Inc., Appellant V. Mario Interiano (quick note: this opinion is unpublished, but we are here to talk about an issue that was not determined on appeal – WISHA compliance), a subcontractor was injured when a security barrier failed and he fell into an elevator shaft.

    A jury awarded a $1.56 million verdict against the general contractor, and the court of appeals affirmed on the basis that the general contractor has a non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973, codified under RCW 49.17 (WISHA).

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

    Nashville Stadium Bond Deal Tests Future of Spectator Sports

    December 14, 2020 —
    America’s country-music capital is making a bet on the world’s most popular sport. A Nashville, Tennessee agency is selling $225 million of bonds to finance the construction of a 30,000-seat Major League Soccer stadium in Music City, anticipating it could be a boon once spectator sports emerge from the pandemic. Local officials have faith that it will: the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County agreed to step in if revenue from the stadium isn’t enough to cover the debt payments, insulating bondholders from risk. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda Albright, Bloomberg and Danielle Moran, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    April 08, 2014 —
    The insured's claim for contingent business interruption ("CBI") coverage was denied in Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3096 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014). Millenium processed titanium dioxide, a compound used for its white pigmentation, at its plant in Western Australia. Millennium purchased natural gas to process the titanium dioxide from Alinta Sales Pty Ltd., a natural gas supplier. Alinta purchased gas from Apache Corporation. Once Apache processed the natural gas, it was injected into a pipeline. The gas from Apache's facility was commingled with that obtained from other producers, resulting in a mix of gas in a single pipeline. Alinta had sole ownership of the gas once it entered the pipeline. Under Alinta's contract with Millennium, title to the gas passed to Millenium only at the time of delivery, i.e., when the gas left the pipeline and was delivered to Millennium's facility through a separate delivery line. Millennium had no contract or business relationship with Apache, and the contract it had with Alinta made no reference to Apache. An explosion occurred at Apache's facility causing its natural gas production to cease. As a result, Millennium's gas supply was curtailed, and it was force to shut down its operations for a number of months. 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

    Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

    October 21, 2015 —
    In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building

    November 27, 2023 —
    The lower court's decision finding no coverage based upon the governmental action exclusion was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois. McCann Plumbing, Heating & Cooling v. Pekin Ins. Co., 2023 Ill.App. LEXIS 300 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 23, 2023). McCann purchased a building to use for its heating, ventilation, and air conditioning business. The building was surrounded by two unihhabited properties which often flooded. The city determined that a building on the adjacent property had to be demolished. In the course of destruction, the McCann's building was damaged, leaving a portion of their building open to the elements. McCann sought coverage from Pekin for damage incurred in the demolition. The policy provided coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to" the covered property. Pekin denied coverage under the policy's governmental action exclusion, which provided,
    We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following: . . . c. Governmental Action Seizure or destruction of property by order of governmental authority . . .
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

    June 28, 2013 —
    A prior post here discussed the Tenth Circuit's decision in Greystone Constr., Inc. v. National Union Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011). The court found a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage caused by the faulty workmanship was unintentional. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a determination on whether any policy exclusions precluded a defense or indemnity for damage arising from faulty workmanship. On remand, the district court denied National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to establish the policy exclusions precluded its duty to defend and to indemnify. See Greystone Constr., Inc. v. v. National Union Fire & Marine ins. Co., 2013 U. S. LEXIS 46707 (D. Colo. March 31, 2013). Greystone was sued for construction defects in homes it built. The suit alleged that Greystone failed to recognize defects in the soil where the house was built. National Union refused to defend. The district court initially granted summary judgment to National Union because claims arising from construction defects were not covered. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit vacated because the damage in the underlying suit did not categorically fall outside coverage under the policy. On remand, National Union first argued there was no duty to defend based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for damage arising out of work done by subcontractors unless the subcontractors agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the insured and carried insurance with coverage limits equal to or greater than that carried by the insured. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument because National Union had to rely on facts outside of the underlying complaint. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    October 01, 2013 —
    The New York Times reports that building permits in August were at their highest since May 2008, even despite a recent rise in mortgage rates. Construction starts on single-family homes were at their highest in six months as well. On the other hand, construction starts for condominiums and apartments fell slightly more than 11 percent. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Too Costly to Be Fair: Texas Appellate Court Finds the Arbitration Clause in a Residential Construction Contract Unenforceable

    November 21, 2022 —
    In Cont’l Homes of Tex., L.P. v. Perez, No. 04-21-00396-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 7691, the Court of Appeals of Texas (Appellate Court) considered whether the lower court erred in refusing to enforce an arbitration clause in a construction contract between the parties. The Appellate Court considered the costs of the arbitration forum required by the contract in the context of the plaintiffs’ monthly household income. The court also compared the arbitration cost to the estimated cost of litigating the dispute. The court held that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable on the grounds that the arbitration costs were not affordable for the plaintiffs and not an “adequate and accessible substitute to litigation.” The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiffs, Giancarlo and Krystle Perez (collectively, the Perezes), hired the defendant, Continental Homes of Texas, LP d/b/a Express Home (Express Homes), to build a new home in San Antonio. Express Homes provided its standard contract, which included a binding arbitration clause. The clause stated that every potential dispute between the parties occurring before and after the closing of the purchase of the home was subject to binding arbitration, to be administered and conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The clause also stated that the costs of the arbitration were to be split by the parties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com