BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessesSeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness consultantSeattle Washington construction 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


    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    "On Second Thought"

    Reminder: Quantum Meruit and Breach of Construction Contract Don’t Mix

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Bert Hummel Appointed to Chief Justice’s Commission on Professionalism

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Senior Living Facility Makes Construction Defect Claims

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

    Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

    SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

    ASCE Statement on Senate Passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024

    Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief

    What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up 01/26/22

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants

    ASCE Statement on The Partial Building Collapse in Surfside, Florida

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know

    Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    Addressing the Defective Stucco Crisis

    Bridge Disaster - Italy’s Moment of Truth

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash

    Get Smarter About Electric Construction Equipment

    Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage
    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

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    May 29, 2023 —
    This month, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a new statute that caps retainage on private construction projects to five percent (5%), provides a mechanism for subcontractors to get paid their retainage prior to project completion, and allows for contractors and subcontractors to post a retainage bond and get paid their retainage early. For those interested in reading the full text of this new law, the statute can be found here. The new statute goes into effect on July 23, 2023. Under the statute, when a contractor or subcontractor considers their work under a contract subject to retainage complete, they may notify the party they contracted to perform the work for. Within 15 days of receiving the notice of completion of work, the party receiving the notice must respond with either (1) notice of acceptance of work or (2) notice of uncompleted items to the contractor or subcontractor. If the party receiving notice does not provide notice of uncompleted items within 15 days or fails to respond to the notice of completion entirely, the unpaid retainage will begin to accrue interest at a rate of one percent (1%) per month, 30 days after the initial 15-day period. However, this interest will not accrue against a contractor who has not been paid the retainage by an upper-tier contractor or owner until payment has been received, so long as that contractor has submitted its subcontractor’s notice of completion to the upper-tier contractor or owner within 30 days of receipt. Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne S. Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

    August 30, 2021 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

    Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts

    January 02, 2019 —
    In Massachusetts, it is well established that a contractor cannot recover damages from a construction contract without first showing that the contractor completely and strictly performed on all of the contract’s terms. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowed the rule by concluding that complete and strict performance is only required for contract terms relating to the design and construction itself. The high Court explained that non-design / non-construction contract terms are governing by “ordinary contract principles, including the traditional Massachusetts materiality rule.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Goodelman may be contacted at jgoodelman@grsm.com

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    August 06, 2014 —
    Donald Trump sued two Atlantic City casinos that he no longer operates to force their owner either to improve “appalling” conditions or remove his name in a market where gamblers are fleeing and bankruptcies are rising. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino and Trump Taj Mahal fail to meet industry standards for cleanliness, hotel services and food and beverages, according to a complaint filed yesterday in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Trump wants a judge to compel Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc., which he once controlled, to correct the shortcomings or jettison his name. The Trump Entertainment Resorts website includes his photograph above this quote: ``The Trump casinos in Atlantic City are among the finest and most luxurious resorts you'll find anywhere in the world. I personally invite you to experience everything that we have to offer.'' Trump Plaza is set to close Sept. 16, putting 1,000 people out of work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Voreacos, Bloomberg
    Mr. Voreacos may be contacted at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net

    Nuclear Fusion Pushes to Reach Commercial Power Plant Stage

    August 05, 2024 —
    The quest to develop nuclear fusion—the process that energizes the sun and other stars—as an earth-based power source dates back more than a century when Albert Einstein and other scientists theorized how enormous amounts of energy could be produced when atoms fuse. That research was partly diverted for wartime weapons priorities but later targeted to develop fusion for commercial-scale energy—what sector proponents have called the “holy grail” for decades since. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record, Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record, Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record and David Godkin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    July 19, 2017 —
    The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1 The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million. Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    May 16, 2018 —
    In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    October 16, 2018 —
    Part I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance. REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:
    • include a request for a modification of contract time; and
    • exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.
    Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so. Reprinted courtesy of George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Talarico may be contacted at gtalarico@sillscummis.com