BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington consulting engineersSeattle Washington building expertSeattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington architect expert witnessSeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington contractor expert witnessSeattle Washington slope failure 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


    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2023 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

    Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban

    ABC Announces Disaster Relief Efforts and Resources Following Hurricane Milton

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/10/23) – Wobbling Real Estate, Booming (and Busting) Construction, and Eye-Watering Insurance Premiums

    Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

    Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (03/01/23) – Mass Timber, IIJA Funding, and Distressed Real Estate

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak

    Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership

    Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

    London Penthouse Will Offer Chance to Look Down at Royalty

    Zetlin & De Chiara Ranked in the Top Tier for Construction Law by Legal 500 USA

    Top 10 OSHA Violations For The Construction Industry In 2023

    Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Homeowner Who Wins Case Against Swimming Pool Contractor Gets a Splash of Cold Water When it Comes to Attorneys’ Fees

    Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/6/24) – Construction Tech Deals Surge, Senators Reintroduce Housing Bill, and Nonresidential Spending Drops

    Points on Negotiating Construction Claims

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    Burden Supporting Termination for Default

    Look Out! Texas Building Shedding Marble Panels

    How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

    Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)

    Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

    Contractor Sues License Board

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action

    Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

    Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed

    Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

    Home Construction Slows in Las Vegas

    Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

    French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

    If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Seattle's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

    December 09, 2019 —
    The opinion in Westchester Fire Ins. Co, LLC v. Kesoki Painting, LLC, 260 So.3d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) leads to a worthy discussion because it involves a common scope of work occurrence on construction projects involving a general contractor and subcontractor. The contractor submits a subcontractor’s change order request to the owner and the owner rejects the change order. What happens next is a scope of work payment dispute between the general contractor and subcontractor. Yep, a common occurrence. In this case, a general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform waterproofing and painting. A scope of work issue arose because the specifications did not address how the window gaskets should be cut and then sealed. The owner wanted the window gaskets cut at a 45-degree angle and the subcontractor claimed this resulted in increased extra work. The general contractor agreed and submitted a change order to the owner to cover these costs. The owner rejected the change order claiming it was part of the general contractor’s scope of work even though the cutting of window gaskets at a 45-degree angle was not detailed in the specifications. After the subcontractor filed a suit against the general contractor’s payment bond surety, the project architect further rejected the change order because gasket cutting was part of the specification requirements. (Duh! What else was the architect going to say? It was not going to concede there was an omission that resulted in a change order to the owner, right?) 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

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    September 28, 2017 —
    Pitting a receivership court’s inherent equitable powers against pre-existing property rights can lead to some pretty interesting questions. In SEC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 848 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (11th Cir. 2017), the Eleventh Circuit recently examined whether a district court’s inherent authority to establish a claims submission process allowed the court to extinguish a security interest in real property based solely upon an untimely proof of claim. Much to the relief of secured creditors, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred, as a matter of law, by extinguishing the creditor’s pre-existing property rights under those circumstances. Introduction Equity vests a district court with “‘broad powers and wide discretion to determine relief in an equity receivership.’” Wells Fargo, 848 F.3d at 1343-44 (quoting SEC v. Elliot, 953 F.2d 1560, 1566 (11th Cir. 1992)). These powers include: (i) establishing procedures for the submission of claims to a receiver, and (ii) setting a claims bar date. Id. at 1344 (citing SEC v. Tipco, Inc., 554 F.2d 710, 711 (5th Cir. 1977)). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context

    March 06, 2022 —
    A business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:
    • whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
    • whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.
    As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”[4] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Understanding the Miller Act

    February 26, 2015 —
    John P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.” In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

    October 24, 2023 —
    Could the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration. This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Paton may be contacted at lpaton@grsm.com

    NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

    February 12, 2014 —
    Eileen N. Fanning sued the city of Watertown, New York after incurring injuries from a fall on a sidewalk on Court Street, according to the Watertown Daily Times. A state Supreme Court judge dismissed the lawsuit. According to Fanning as reported by the Watertown Daily Times, the plaintiff “fell on an uneven section of sidewalk” and “suffered multiple broken bones in her hand, as well as neurological damage to her arm, among other injuries.” She claimed that the damage is permanent. The lawsuit involved Purcell Construction (the landscape pavers), Neighbors of Watertown (a renovation project), and the city of Watertown. The judge ruled that “Neighbors of Watertown was not liable for her injuries because the agency neither owned nor controlled the property where the injuries occurred and therefore ‘did not owe a duty of care’ to users of the walk as it was not responsible for the sidewalk’s maintenance.” The city was not held liable “because it had received no prior written notice about the alleged defective condition of the property.” Furthermore, the judge “agreed with Purcell Construction’s claim that the area claimed to be defective is ‘one little section’ of sidewalk ‘over which the public walked’ for nearly 20 years.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    January 13, 2020 —
    In Barrett v. Berry Contr. L.P., No. 13-18-00498-CV, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 8811, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered, among other things, the procedural timing requirements of filing a certificate of merit in conjunction with a complaint. The court concluded that the proper reading of the statute requires a plaintiff to file a certificate of merit with the first complaint naming the defendant as a party. In Barrett, after sustaining injuries while working at a refinery, David Barrett (Barrett) filed suit against Berry Contracting, LP and Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd. on July 6, 2016. In Barrett’s first amended complaint, which he filed on August 23, 2016, Barrett added Govind Development, LLC (Govind) as another defendant. Barrett subsequently filed a second amended complaint (omitting Govind) and, on December 27, 2017, shortly before the statute of limitations ran, a third amended complaint (reasserting claims against Govind). On January 28, 2018, after the statute of limitations period ran, Barrett filed a certificate of merit. Govind filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Barrett violated the statute that required a certificate of merit to be filed with the complaint, Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code §150.002.
    Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002(a) states, In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, a claimant shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect or registered professional land surveyor…
    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

    Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer

    February 01, 2023 —
    Although the court was incredulous that the parties were disputing the possession of a gate opener allegedly damaged in a lightning strike, it granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment finding the insurer had converted the gate opener. Privratsky v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196002 (D. Haw. Oct. 27, 2022). (Full disclosure, our office is co-counsel for the insured). Mr. Privratsky alleged his home on Maui was struck by lightning which caused an electrical surge. The home and personal property were damaged. The alleged cost of repair work at one point was as much as $325,000. A claim was submitted under a homeowner's policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty paid for only some of the damage. Privratsky filed suit alleging three causes of action for: (1) declaratory judgment that the losses were covered by the policy issued by Liberty; (2) bad faith; and (3) conversion of personal property, namely, the damaged gate operator. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com