BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington building envelope 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


    California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration

    Ex-Ironworkers Local President Sentenced to Prison Term for Extortion

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

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

    Near-Zero Carbon Cement Powers Sustainable 3D-Printed Homes

    Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

    Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- A Wrap Up

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

    Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?

    Being the Bearer of Bad News (Sounding the Alarm on Construction Issues Early and Often) (Law Note)

    Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

    General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices

    Florida's New Pre-Suit Notification Requirement: Retroactive or Prospective Application?

    2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

    Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence

    Introducing Nomos LLP!

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Vito John Marzano Secure Dismissal of Indemnification and Breach of Contract Claims Asserted against Subcontractor

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

    Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

    Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

    7 Areas where Technology is Shifting the Construction Business

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    "Multiple Claims" Provisions on Contractor's Professional Liability Policy Creates a Trap for Policyholders

    Deferred Maintenance?

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    Brad Pitt’s Foundation Sues New Orleans Architect for Construction Defects

    Florida Courts Inundated by Wave of New Lawsuits as Sweeping Tort Reform Appears Imminent

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    Instant Hotel Tower, But Is It Safe?

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

    Substituting Materials and Failure to Comply with Contractual Requirements

    Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers – Including One Top 10 and Three Top 100 Washington Attorneys

    City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

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

    The Biggest Trials Coming to Courts Around the World in 2021

    What Every Project Participant Needs to Know About Delay Claims

    Arizona Supreme Court Leaves Limits on Construction Defects Unclear
    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

    ASCE Statement on EPA Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan

    December 27, 2021 —
    WASHINGTON, DC. – The American Society of Civil Engineers applauds the Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency to help communities across the country remove lead pipes out of their drinking water systems. Access to clean and safe drinking water is critical to public health and economic prosperity, and ASCE's 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. gave a grade of C- for the drinking water category. It is estimated that as many as 10 million American households still have lead water pipes in use, which can put at risk the health and safety of families, particularly children. For utilities, moving forward with completing an inventory of lead service lines as part of the Lead and Copper Rule is a critical step, so we can get a better national picture of the scope of the problem. This plan will allocate nearly $3 billion from the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to states for lead service line replacements in FY 2022 and will prioritize communities with the highest lead levels. While additional investment will be needed, it is a significant down-payment on a national shared priority of clean drinking water for all Americans. It will allow utilities of all sizes to accelerate their rate of lead pipe replacement and offer technical assistance to those communities just embarking on these types of projects. For more information about the American Society of Civil Engineers, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    October 17, 2022 —
    Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb, a Los Angeles based law firm, has unveiled a dynamic new brand. The firm will now be known as “Chapman Glucksman.” The name change reflects the forward thinking and creative approach that the firm brings to its client service. “Chapman Glucksman has always been a firm of innovative thinkers with a keen focus on obtaining very favorable results for our clients. Our new brand captures the firm’s energy and focus,” said Craig Roeb, a shareholder who has spent his entire legal career with the firm. “We are excited about the growth of Chapman Glucksman, with the recent addition of new shareholder, Greg Sabo, partners, Chelsea Zwart and David Weinberger, as well as six new associate attorneys. The continued growth of Chapman Glucksman is a reflection of our strong client loyalty and growth,” said Randall Dean, shareholder and head of the Professional Liability Practice Group. Founded in 1985, Chapman Glucksman is a multi-faceted law firm with offices in Los Angeles, Orange County, Bay Area and Palm Springs. Our AV rated firm has diverse practice groups consisting of highly skilled, experienced, insightful, responsive, pragmatic and creative lawyers who vigorously advocate our client’s interests, and secure result-oriented, favorable and creative solutions to complex issues. Our achievements derive directly from our commitment to providing our clients with an unparalleled level of attention, exceptional work product and a strong work ethic with outstanding results achieved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    October 18, 2021 —
    In the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers. Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located. Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    August 04, 2011 —

    In the case of Continental Western Insurance Company v. Shay Construction Inc., Judge Walker Miller has granted a summary judgment against Shay Construction and their co-defendant, Milender White Construction Company.

    Shay was the framing subcontractor for Milender White on what the court described as “a major construction project in Grand County, Colorado.” Two of Shay’s subcontractors, Wood Source Inc. and Chase Lumber Company furnished materials, labor, and equipment to Shay. They subsequently sued for nonpayment and sought to enforce mechanic’s liens, naming both Shay and Milender as defendants. Milender White alleged that Shay had “breached its obligation under its subcontracts with Milender White.”

    Shay’s insurance provider, Continental Western, stated that its coverage did not include “the dispute between Shay, its subcontractors, particularly the cross claims asserted by Milender White.” Shay then sued Continental Western, alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.

    The court, however, has found with Continental Western and has granted them a summary judgment. They found “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” The judge did not side with Continental Western on their interpretation of the phrase “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” The court found that the Colorado courts have not limited this to tort actions only. However, as Milender’s cross claim included claims of faulty workmanship on the part of Shay, Judge Miller found for Continental.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    January 06, 2012 —

    In their fourth quarter earnings call, executives of Hovnanian Enterprises made some projections for investors, covering the company’s plans for 2012. During the call, Ara K. Hovnanian, the firm’s CEO, discussed their reserves to meet construction defect claims. The firm does an annual actuarial study of their construction defect reserves.

    Mr. Hovnanian noted that there have been no changes for the past several years, but this year they are increasing their reserves by about $6.3 million. Additionally, the firm has added $2.5 million to their legal reserves. Mr. Hovnanian stated “we do not anticipate that changes of this magnitude will be recurring as we look forward to 2012.”

    Read the full story…

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

    #2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

    December 30, 2015 —
    In July of this year, Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.” Read the full story... In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,” Matthew S. Foy and Michael A. Pursell of Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.” Read the full story... This month, Graham C. Mills of Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    August 26, 2015 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes new partner Robert S. Rucci. Mr. Rucci joins Haight’s San Diego office in the Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. For 25 years, Mr. Rucci has specialized in defending design professionals, businesses and their employees in addition to representing clients against declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith litigation. During his career, he has tried 60 cases to defense verdict and successfully resolved countless matters via mediation, arbitration and settlement conference. His extensive litigation experience is invaluable to our clients. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 402 West Broadway Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Rucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Rucci may be contacted at rrucci@hbblaw.com

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    September 10, 2014 —
    Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP 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