BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington stucco expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington soil failure expert witnessSeattle Washington structural concrete expertSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnesses
    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


    Hunton Insurance Practice Receives Top (Tier 1) National Ranking by US News & World Report

    In Hong Kong, You Can Find a Home Where the Buffalo Roam

    Tennessee Looks to Define Improvements to Real Property

    Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    The California Privacy Rights Act Passed – Now What?

    BWB&O Attorneys are Selected to 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Impairing Your Insurer’s Subrogation Rights

    Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

    Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement

    Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

    Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    Illinois Court Determines Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Save A Legal Fee? Sometimes You Better Talk With Your Construction Attorney

    Reconstructing the Francis Scott Key Bridge Utilizing the Progressive Design-Build Method

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    Fee Simple!

    California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

    The Rise of Modular Construction – Impacts for Consideration

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    Appellate Team Secures Victory in North Carolina Governmental Immunity Personal Injury Matter

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

    Builder and County Tussle over Unfinished Homes

    Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2023 California Rising Stars List

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    Massive Danish Hospital Project Avoids Fire Protection Failures with Imerso Construction AI

    So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020

    New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    A Trivial Case

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

    Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

    Skanska Found Negligent for Damages From Breakaway Barges

    AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide
    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

    Team Temporarily Stabilizes Delaware River Bridge Crack

    February 02, 2017 —
    The team temporarily stabilizing the Delaware River Bridge and planning its permanent repair also are trying to find a precedent for the bridge’s uncommon fracture. Connecting the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes, the 61-year-old symmetrical truss bridge was shut down indefinitely on Jan. 20, when a complete fracture in a steel truss was discovered below the bridge deck. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
    Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

    Filing Motion to Increase Lien Transfer Bond (Before Trial Court Loses Jurisdiction Over Final Judgment)

    May 15, 2023 —
    If a construction lien is recorded against real property, the lien can be transferred to a lien transfer bond. This transfers the security or collateral of the construction lien from the real property to the lien transfer bond. The lien transfer bond can be a bond posted by a surety company or it can be cash. This is governed by Florida Statute s. 713.24. The amount of the lien does not dictate the amount of the lien transfer bond. Rather, the lien transfer bond needs to be in the amount of the lien, plus interest on that amount for three years, plus $1,000 or 25% of the amount of the lien (whichever is greater so factor in the 25%) to cover attorney’s fees. Fla. Stat. 713.24(1). If you are looking to transfer a construction lien to a lien transfer bond, make sure to consult with counsel. Keep in mind there is a statutory mechanism for a lienor to increase the lien transfer bond to cover attorney’s fees and costs and notice the word “must” in the statute below. Pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24(3):
    Any party having an interest in such security or the property from which the lien was transferred may at any time, and any number of times, file a complaint in chancery in the circuit court of the county where such security is deposited, or file a motion in a pending action to enforce a lien, for an order to require additional security, reduction of security, change or substitution of sureties, payment of discharge thereof, or any other matter affecting said security. If the court finds that the amount of the deposit or bond in excess of the amount claimed in the claim of lien is insufficient to pay the lienor’s attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in the action to enforce the lien, the court must increase the amount of the cash deposit or lien transfer bond. Nothing in this section shall be construed to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the circuit courts over transfer bond claims for nonpayment of an amount within the monetary jurisdiction of the county courts.
    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

    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

    Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

    January 31, 2018 —
    In a recent article published by Seattle Business Magazine, the Japanese manufacturer of the much-maligned tunnel machine (nicknamed “Bertha”) provided its version of events and its position to the public. The interview took place after executives from Hitachi Zosen were not invited to the ceremony celebrating Bertha’s breakthrough at the end of its two-mile journey underground Seattle. Ultimately, apparently, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), the general contractor for the project, and Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) agreed that Hitachi Zosen executives could attend the event, but they were not allowed to stand with other dignitaries on a specially-built viewing platform. The $3.2 billion Alaska Way Viaduct replacement project is embroiled in a number of legal controversies. Now that the tunnel is finished, Hitachi Zosen has finally decided to tell its side of the story. Hitachi’s problems started on December 5, 2013, three days after the tunnel-boring machine (“TBM”) hit a 120-foot long, eight-inch diameter steel well casing (the project DRB has determined that the pipe was a differing site condition), the TBM overheated and ground to a halt. The project was shut down almost two years while the TBM was being repaired. According to Hitachi Zosen, it always worked hard to get the job done. “We wanted to finish the tunnel and make Seattle happy with the results,” said Hidetoshi Hirata, the general manager for Hitachi Zosen. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

    June 01, 2020 —
    In Textron v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (No. B262933, filed 2/25/20), a California appeals court held that the Restatement’s choice of laws factors mandated application of California’s continuous and progressive trigger of coverage to asbestos claims, overcoming an argument that a manifestation trigger should apply under Rhode Island law. Travelers insured Textron from 1966 to 1987. In 2011, Textron was sued by a California resident, Esters, for damages caused by mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure in California. The action was defended and settled by Travelers and other insurers under reservations of rights. Textron sued Travelers in California for a declaration that Travelers owed duties to defend and indemnify the Esters action. Travelers cross-complained, seeking reimbursement. The case turned on choice of law for trigger of coverage as between California and Rhode Island. Citing Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, the Textron court noted that California applies a continuous trigger to continuous or progressively deteriorating injury. By contrast, in Rhode Island a covered occurrence exists “when the damage … manifests itself, … is discovered or, … in the exercise of reasonable diligence is discoverable.” (Citing Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (R.I. 2002) 754 A.2d 742.) According to Travelers, the Esters action was not covered under Rhode Island law because the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was not diagnosed until 2010, after Travelers was off the risk. 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

    Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    June 28, 2013 —
    The Alabama Supreme Court found there was no coverage for the insured cabinet maker for claims arising from alleged faulty workmanship. Shane Traylor Cabinetmaker, L.L.C. v. Am. Resources Ins. Co., Inc., 2013 Ala. LEXIS 42 (May 3, 2013). The insured was sued by a homeowner for property damage caused by faulty workmanship. The insurer refused to defend, contending there was no "occurrence." The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2024 “Atlanta 500” List

    February 26, 2024 —
    Atlanta, Ga. (February 9, 2024) – Atlanta Partner Candis R. Jones has been named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2024 “Atlanta 500” list of the most powerful law professionals in Atlanta. This is the fourth year in a row she has received this recognition. To compile this list, the publication reviewed nominations from the public and consulted experts across various sectors. The magazine’s editors and writers considered not only the status of the nominees within their respective organizations, but also whether the nominees were visionaries who led programs for their communities and created opportunities for employees. According to Atlanta Magazine, this list is “an anthology of the power that resides in Atlanta.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Candis Jones, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Jones may be contacted at Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com

    Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad

    November 07, 2022 —
    In April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants. ITC Site Plan The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ric Macchiaroli, Pillsbury
    Mr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com