BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington soil failure expert witnessSeattle Washington building code compliance expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessesSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing construction expert
    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


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

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Apparently, It’s Not Always Who You Know”

    California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

    Home Prices on the Rise

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

    You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?

    The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here

    MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Homebuilding Design Goes 3D

    You Can Take This Job and Shove It!

    OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

    Fires, Hurricanes, Dangerous Heat: The US Is Reeling From a String of Disasters

    U.S. Homeownership Rate Falls to Lowest Since Early 1995

    Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    In Kansas City, a First-Ever Stadium Designed for Women’s Sports Takes the Field

    Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

    Congratulations 2024 DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

    US Civil Rights Tools Are Failing the Most Polluted Black Communities

    Extrinsic Evidence, or Eight Corners? Texas Court Sheds Light on Determining the Duty to Defend

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence

    The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!
    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

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

    January 22, 2024 —
    Haight is celebrating new partner promotions in 2024. Congratulations to Gary LaHendro, Melvin Marcia and Philip McDermott! Gary LaHendro became a member of the California State Bar in December 1993. He is a member of the Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Group. He focuses his practice on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. Gary’s clients include carriers within the United States and London Markets for whom he has provided coverage advice on various lines of coverage, including commercial general liability, excess, errors and omissions, auto, and representations and warranties. Gary also monitors the defense of insureds with respect to third-party lawsuits. In addition to coverage work, Gary has over 20 years of litigation experience as lead defense counsel on cases involving soil and groundwater contamination, professional liability, construction defect and personal injury cases. He is also a skilled appellate attorney and Certified Mediator. Melvin Marcia became a member of the California State Bar on June 1, 2016. Melvin is a member of the firm’s Transportation Law, General Liability, Product Liability and Fire Litigation Practice Groups. His practice focuses on litigation of high value cases, ranging from catastrophic injury, wrongful death, premises liability, business disputes, product liability, uninsured/underinsured arbitrations and subrogation matters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Read the Property Insurance Policy to be Sure You are Complying with Post Loss Obligations

    January 04, 2021 —
    I have discussed this before in prior postings, but it is worth repeating. It is imperative for an insured to comply with post loss obligations in a property insurance policy. Not doing so gives the insurer the argument that its insured forfeited coverage under the policy. Naturally, this is never what an insured wants as this is contrary to submitting an insurance claim to begin with. To avoid this situation, an insured should consult with counsel and read the policy including endorsements issued to the policy to be sure that post loss obligations are complied with and, if they are not, there is a basis supported by case law. In a recent case, Goldberg v. Universal Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2118b (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), the property insurance policy for hurricanes and windstorms contained the following through an endorsement issued to the policy: You must give notice of a claim, a supplemental claim, or reopened claim for loss or damage caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane, with us in accordance with the terms of this policy and within three years after the hurricane first made landfall or the windstorm caused the covered damage. For purposes of this Section, the term “supplemental claim” or “reopened claim” means any additional claim for recovery from us for losses from the same hurricane or windstorm which we have previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim. . . . 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

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    February 07, 2018 —
    Finland’s capital is currently experiencing a construction boom. Old industrial citadels are turning into residential areas with new commercial centers. Consequently, Helsinki needs to build new infrastructure. To improve the efficiency and quality of infrastructure construction, the city has started using BIM, and is now learning how to get the most value from it. Ville Alajoki, Team Leader in Helsinki’s Urban Development Division, is a keen proponent of BIM. “Infrastructure construction is still in its early stages when it comes to using BIM. For the most part, BIM implementation has not been systematic in our city yet. We tend to use it in our own structural design and often in building construction. However, in infrastructure project management, its active individuals who have set the pace,” Ville admits. He believes that the city’s strategy for 2017–2021 will spur the use of new technologies, including BIM. “Helsinki aims to be the city in the world that makes the best use of digitalization,” Mayor Jan Vapaavuori has declared. A good start, but there’s room for improvement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business Blog
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

    Low Interest Rates Encourages Homeowners to become Landlords

    June 18, 2014 —
    CNN Money reported that more homeowners are deciding to keep their homes rather than sell, and become landlords instead. "Clients tell us all the time, 'We're never going to sell our home, even after we buy a new one,'" Glenn Kelman, CEO of the brokerage, Redfin, told CNN Money. “The math works in most landlords' favor these days,” according to CNN Money. “Rents have risen by about 20% nationwide since mid-2006, the housing bubble peak, while home prices are still about 21% below what they were at that time.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    June 02, 2016 —
    Twenty-one White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while ten received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The winners named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

    May 09, 2011 —

    In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

    First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

    The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

    Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

    The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    June 02, 2016 —
    In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    October 08, 2014 —
    Builder reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) is hosting a new “dynamic roofing system, installed at the Security Forces Building at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas,” which “uses a combination of technologies that heat and cool air and water, produce electricity, and collect rainwater.” If the project is successful, it “could be replicated at thousands of DoD buildings throughout the country in the near future.” Builder described the process: “A retrofitted metal roof is installed over the existing roof, which creates a cavity between the existing and new roofs. Within that cavity insulation, solar thermal heating systems and cooling of air and water for the building can be installed. The roofing, insulation, hydronic solar thermal systems, engineered air pathways, and photovoltaic cells are designed to work symbiotically.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of