BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington soil failure expert witnessSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessesSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington eifs 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


    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

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

    Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

    Contractor Owed a Defense

    New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

    Failing to Release A Mechanics Lien Can Destroy Your Construction Business

    Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/08/23) – Updates on U.S. Mortgage Applications, the Inflation Reduction Act, and Multifamily Sector

    Agree First or it May Cost You Later

    eRent: Construction Efficiency Using Principles of the Sharing Economy

    The Final Nail: Ongoing Repairs Do Not Toll the Statute of Repose

    Contractors Must Register with the L&I Prior to Offering or Performing Work, or Risk Having their Breach of Contract Case Dismissed

    Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    Another TV Fried as Georgia Leads U.S. in Lightning Costs

    Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

    Brenda Radmacher to Speak at Construction Super Conference 2024

    Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

    Standard of Care

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Economic Loss Not Property Damage

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    Automating Your Home? There’s an App for That

    California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

    Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

    To Catch a Thief

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

    ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

    Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/18/23) – Zillow’s New Pilot Program, Production Begins at Solar Panel Plant in Georgia, and More Diversity on Contracts for Buffalo Bills Stadium

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

    Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    December 31, 2014 —
    In 2013, the case Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC received a great deal of attention for its possible ramifications to how California’s Right to Repair Act (also known as SB 800) could be applied. However, 2014 had its share of SB 800 policy trends, most notably caused by the ruling in Burch. In their article, “Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back,” authors Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefco, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, analyzed Burch as well as KB Home Greater Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., both cases that had ramifications on how California’s Right to Repair Act is applied. Read the full story... Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch discussed the Liberty Mutual and Burch cases in her article, “California’s Right to Repair Act is Not a Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy when Construction Defects cause Actual Property Damage.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    August 28, 2018 —
    Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued some very significant rulings regarding the construction of new natural gas pipelines. These cases are Berkley, et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, decided July 25; Sierra Club, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, The Wilderness Society, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, and Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided July 27, 2018; and Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided August 6, 2018. The first two cases involve the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and the last case involves the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. 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

    How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

    March 01, 2017 —
    I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    September 24, 2014 —
    Stairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so. A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].) The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256. Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP

    Vietnam Expands Arrests in Coffee Region Property Probe

    February 19, 2024 —
    Vietnam authorities detained the Communist Party chief of coffee-producing province Lam Dong as they expand an investigation into alleged bribery tied to a tourist and residential project, the public security ministry said in a website statement. Party chief Tran Duc Quan was arrested for allegedly abusing his power and position, according to the statement. Quan allegedly violated the law while giving instructions to the Dai Ninh property project in the province, causing severe consequences, it said. A Lam Dong Provincial Party Committee representative declined to provide a comment about the arrest. A representative for Quan was not available. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mai Ngoc Chau, Bloomberg

    Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?

    September 02, 2024 —
    The term “smart cities” has become popular parlance for municipalities’ attempts to enhance delivery of urban services and infrastructure through information and communications technology. While they may conjure images of neon-lit high rises or streetscapes populated by sleek, hovering vehicles, a bit like the 1960s-era The Jetsons cartoon envisioned our high-tech future, the reality of smart cities has begun to emerge in more subtle, less glamourous forms. Cities tend to focus on wastewater monitoring, traffic control and energy distribution technologies in their efforts to become incrementally “smarter.” Smart cities lean heavily on automation, internet connectivity and the Internet of Things (IoT)—including smartphones, connected cars and a host of web-based appliances and utilities—to boost the delivery and quality of essential urban services and infrastructure like transit, sanitation, water, energy, emergency response and more. Successful smart cities need infrastructure that supports such connectivity, and they pull data from hundreds, or even thousands, of sensors that can be used to analyze and shepherd the direction of resources. Reprinted courtesy of James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury and Brian E. Finch, Pillsbury Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Finch may be contacted at brian.finch@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alleging and Proving a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim

    December 13, 2021 —
    When it comes to construction disputes, a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim is not commonly asserted. A FDUTPA claim is a statutory claim under Florida Statute s. 501.201 en seq. This claim is NOT easy to prove, particularly in the construction context. Sometimes, a party will assert a FDUTPA claim to create a basis for attorney’s fees; however, that basis cuts BOTH ways, i.e., you can be liable for fees if you fail to prove the FDUTPA claim. In a construction dispute, a FDUTPA claim is one that really should be pled with caution after a party understands and fully considers what it MUST prove including the all-important consideration of how actual damages are determined under FDUTPA, which requires an actual loss. Nevertheless, it is good to know what you need to prove to support a FDUTPA claim in case you believe you have facts that can support a FDUTPA claim and actual damages under FDUTPA (known as benefit-of-the-bargain damages). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

    October 15, 2014 —
    According to GlobeSt, New York “Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced a settlement agreement that bars developers Joseph Scarpinito and Shiraz Sanjana—and five affiliated entities they own and operate—from offering or selling securities, including condo and coop sales, in or from New York State.” The settlement is in “result of an investigation by the Attorney General’s real estate finance bureau into allegations of fraud by the developers of the Mirada, an eight-story Harlem condominium.” GlobeSt also stated that the agreement “provides for binding arbitration with the condo purchasers for alleged construction defects, and requires the developers to pay $500,000 in penalties and fines to New York State.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of