BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessSeattle Washington construction experts
    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


    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    Eleventh Circuit Holds that EPA Superfund Remedial Actions are Usually Entitled to the FTCA “Discretionary Function” Exemption

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    "On Second Thought"

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    As Climate Changes, 'Underwater Mortgage' May Take on New Meaning

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    FHFA’s Watt Says Debt Cuts Possible for Underwater Homeowners

    Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    Damages to Property That is Not the Insured's Work Product Are Covered

    Connecting IoT Data to BIM

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

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

    Corps Proposes $4.6B Plan to Steel Miami for Storm Surge

    Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks

    BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

    Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

    Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

    New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    Where Parched California Is Finding New Water Sources

    Use of Dispute Review Boards in the Construction Process

    What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims

    Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High

    California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/26/23) – The Energy Transition and a Bit of Brick-and-Mortar Blues

    Courthouse Reporter Series: The Bizarre Case That Required a 117-Year-Old Expert

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Part I: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    Famed NYC Bridge’s Armor Is Focus of Suit Against French Company

    Nine Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Recognized as Southern California Super Lawyers

    As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

    Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”

    Recent Regulatory Activity
    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

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    December 11, 2013 —
    Macomb Township in southeast Michigan has had $122 million in new development in 2013, all of which helped the region reach its highest building levels since 2007. The wider area saw 398 permits issued for single-family homes in the last twelve months, fifty-two more than in the twelve months prior. “The improvement is economically driven,” said Michael Stoskofa, the CEO of the Home Builders Association of Southeast Michigan. As employment improves in the area, “more people are willing and able to purchase a home,” he said. Home inventory in the area is also at a record low. As a result, projects that were put on hold in 2008 are active again. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Bill would expand multi-year construction and procurement authority in Georgia

    March 06, 2023 —
    A bill introduced in the General Assembly would modify the authority of state and local governments, as well as school systems, to enter multi-year contracts for construction and procurement. In many prior posts, we have addressed state and local governments’ authority to enter guaranteed energy savings performance contracts and multi-year contracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    October 07, 2016 —
    Owners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home. ENTER THE UTPCPL On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

    Is the Removal and Replacement of Nonconforming Work Economically Wasteful?

    September 19, 2022 —
    There are times a contractor installs the wrong material or system contrary to the plans and specifications. A nonconformity. The owner wants the already-installed material or system to be replaced in conformity with the plans and specifications. However, what was installed is functionally equivalent to what the plans and specifications required and would be cost prohibitive, i.e., economically wasteful. If the contractor elects to remove and replace the nonconforming work, it may seek a change order because it is economically wasteful. Or, the contractor may refuse (typically, not the best approach) in furtherance of taking on the fight based on the economic wastefulness associated with the removal and replacement. A recent case, David Boland, Inc. v. U.S., 2022 WL 3440349 (Fed.Cl. 2022), talks about this exaction situation and the economic waste doctrine. This is an important doctrine for contractors to understand when faced with a similar predicament. Here, a contractor was hired by the government to construct a wastewater collection system that was to be owned and operated by a private company. The contractor’s work was going to be incorporated into a larger sewer system that the private company already operated. The contractor was required to install sewer manholes reinforced with steel in accordance with an ASTM standard. The manholes could be rejected if they did not conform to the ASTM standard. Compliance with this ASTM standard was also required by the private company’s construction protocol for the infrastructure, which was incorporated into the contractor’s contract with the government. The contractor was required to strictly comply with the contract. 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

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    June 30, 2016 —
    In Paslay v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. B265348, filed 6/27/16), a California appeals court found triable issues of fact regarding whether State Farm breached its contract in paying a water loss, but affirmed summary adjudication for the insurer on bad faith and elder abuse claims based on the genuine dispute doctrine. 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

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    July 27, 2020 —
    As an almost universal rule here in Virginia, failing to show up for court or respond to a lawsuit is a bad idea. Consequences include default judgment against you without the right to defend or make your case. Courts simply enter judgment and the consequences of that judgment will follow. However, and as is often the case around here, there are small exceptions where the courts of Virginia allow the defaulting party off the hook. Sullivan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. KBE Building Corporation is just such a case. In Sullivan Mechanical, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia was faced with a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment from KBE. The facts are laid out in the opinion, but basically come down to the usual subcontractor not paid by the general contractor and general contractor has reasons for non-payment. Subcontractor, Sullivan Mechanical, sued KBE and KBE failed to respond in a timely manner. One day after the deadline for response had passed, Sullivan moved for entry of default and the clerk entered the default that same day. KBE moved to vacate the default a mere 6 days after entry of default. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

    May 13, 2019 —
    In Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Puccini, LLC, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 1487, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D 383, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals considered whether a landlord’s carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), was precluded from pursuing a subrogation claim against the landlord’s tenant, Puccini, LLC (Puccini), for fire-related damages. After the fire, Zurich paid its insured, Lincoln-Drexel Waserstein, Ltd. (Lincoln), over $2.1 million. Zurich then proceeded with an action against Puccini. Puccini filed for summary judgment arguing that it was an additional insured under the Zurich policy. The trial court agreed with Puccini and dismissed the action. Zurich then appealed the case to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals. Finding that the lease contemplated both liability on the part of the tenant and indemnification in favor of the landlord, the court held that the tenant was not an implied co-insured under Zurich’s policy. Thus, the court allowed Zurich’s subrogation action. The Sutton Doctrine Extension of the Anti-Subrogation Rule In the United States, most states have adopted an anti-subrogation rule either by statute or through common law. Under an anti-subrogation rule, an insurer may not pursue its insured for monies paid to the insured. While some states limit their anti-subrogation rule to apply only to the named insured, other states have expanded the rule to include parties listed as additional insureds, and even, in some instances, implied insureds (those parties not specifically listed, but still considered an insured under the applicable policy). 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

    A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

    July 02, 2024 —
    As a seasoned construction lawyer, I've always prided myself on being independent and tough. However, my toughness was tested when my life took an unexpected turn. In 2013, I was diagnosed with a genetic cardiomyopathy, a condition which made it harder for my heart to pump blood. That diagnosis in itself was devasting since I had to change many things about the way I lived, including having to abandon running, my favorite hobby. After living 10 years in this new normal, in May 2023, I was told my right ventricle was no longer working and there were no further therapies available. I needed a heart transplant. The journey was long, arduous, and filled with both physical and emotional challenges. This life-altering experience not only gave me a new lease on life but also profoundly changed my perspective on practicing law. In this post, I will share three key lessons I learned from my heart transplant journey that have significantly impacted how I approach my legal practice. Lesson 1: The Importance of Patience and Persistence The journey to receiving a heart transplant is often fraught with uncertainty and long waiting periods. My new heart came quickly. I waited 22 days on the transplant list, but for me, the wait seemed interminable, filled with numerous hospital visits, medical tests, and moments of despair. Then came the recovery. The early days were filled with weekly biopsies, unimaginable nerve pain, and days of wondering if things would ever get better. During this time, I learned the true meaning of patience. Each day was a test of my resolve, and giving up was never an option. I had to persist through the toughest days, believing that a positive outcome was possible. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Colon, Saul Ewing
    Ms. Colon may be contacted at lisa.colon@saul.com