BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington stucco expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultant
    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


    Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites

    Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight

    California Subcontractor Gets a Kick in the Rear (or Perhaps the Front) for Prematurely Recorded Mechanics Lien

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

    BWB&O Partner Tyler Offenhauser and Associate Lizbeth Lopez Won Their Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Privette Doctrine

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

    California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

    Investing in Metaverse Real Estate: Mind the Gap Between Recognized and Realized Potential

    Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

    Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle

    Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts

    Fourth Circuit Confirms Scope of “Witness Litigation Privilege”

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

    Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

    Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

    With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption

    The Construction Lawyer as Problem Solver

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    Florida Issues Emergency Fraud Prevention Rule to Protect Policyholders in Wake of Catastrophic Storms

    The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

    The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

    What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

    'Regluing' Oregon State's Showcase for Mass Timber

    First Trump Agenda Nuggets Hit Construction

    Pay-if-Paid Clauses, Nasty, but Enforceable

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

    Nondelegable Duties

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Tick Tock: Don’t Let the Statute of Repose or Limitations Time Periods Run on Your Construction Claims

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    NARI Addresses Construction Defect Claim Issues for Remodeling Contractors

    A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Is in Flux

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments
    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

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    September 15, 2016 —
    Landowners and developers bogged in an EPA wetland determination were recently thrown a life line when the United States Supreme Court determined The Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps) “jurisdictional determinations” (JD) regarding wetland designations are reviewable by the court. United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) landowners and developers who do not have the proper permits can face severe criminal and civil penalties for releasing any pollutant into “the waters of the United States.” Anybody stuck wading through the permitting process will tell you it is difficult, time consuming, expensive, and may eventually prohibit the intended use of the property. Furthermore, there is yet to be a consensus on the definition or scope of the term “waters of the US”. Consequently, a landowners or developers may never be certain whether a permit is necessary before conducting any activity that may discharge a pollutant into a “water of the United States”. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minahan, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

    Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos

    October 11, 2017 —
    Lawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne and Jonathan Woy Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    PSA: Virginia DOLI Amends COVID Workplace Standard

    October 18, 2021 —
    As the governmental response to COVID-19 evolves, so do the various standards that apply to employers. Effective September 8, 2021, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry superseded its earlier permanent workplace standard with a new standard. In many ways, the new standard simplifies compliance because it gets rid of what I believed to be overly confusing workplace classifications into risk levels and simply applies the new standard to all workplaces regardless of how they would have been classified. Some key points to keep in mind regarding the new standard are the following (with the recommendation that all employers read and understand the text of the standard):
    • Masks: All unvaccinated employees must wear masks in all public, common, or shared workspaces with certain exceptions. These exceptions include when an employee is alone in a room/office, when eating, certain medical conditions, and where it is important that the mouth can be seen (such as communication with the deaf). Vaccinated employees need not mask up unless working in a high or substantially transmission area per the CDC Data Tracker.
    • Vaccination Requirement: As of now, the DOLI does not require employee vaccinations. However, employers will need to have a way to determine vaccination status to comply with other parts of the standard.
    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

    Lake Charles Tower’s Window Damage Perplexes Engineers

    October 05, 2020 —
    When Hurricane Laura came onshore Aug. 27 as a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 150 mph, it shattered windows on nearly every level of the 22-story Capital One Tower in the Lake Charles, La., business district. The glass damage is perplexing to engineers who study wind dynamics and window performance. Reprinted courtesy of Autumn Cafiero Giusti, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    March 16, 2017 —
    Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (the "HOA") sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA's complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. After trial, the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury's finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA's damages. MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused an SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800, citing to Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194. The trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, "[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any ... material supplier ... with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." The Court of Appeal reversed and ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of MWI. The Court of Appeal relied on the legislative history of S8800 and Greystone, which held that the first sentence of Civil Code §936 contains an "explicit adoption of a negligence standard" for S8800 claims against product manufacturers. The Court of Appeal reasoned that since §936 treats product manufacturers and material suppliers identically, the holding of Greystone must equally apply to material suppliers. Because the complaint did not state a common law cause of action for strict liability, the HOA was required to prove that the damages were caused by MWI' s negligence or breach of contract. Although, the Court of Appeal found that while the HOA's evidence may have supported a finding that the manufacturer of the leaking pipes was negligent, the HOA had not provided any evidence that MWI, the supplier, had failed to supply the type of pipe ordered, acted unreasonably in failing to detect any manufacturing defects present in the pipe, or damaged it during transportation. Accordingly, the HOA could not prove that the alleged S8800 violation was caused, in whole or in part, by MWI' s negligence, omission, or breach of contract. In light of the decision, homeowner and associations that allege only violations of SB800 standards without asserting a common law cause of action for strict liability cannot prevail by simply producing evidence of a violation, and are required to prove that violation was caused by the negligent act or omission, or breach of contract, of the defendant contractor, material supplier, and/or product manufacturer. Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Governor Signs AB5 Into Law — Reshaping California's Independent Contractor Classification Landscape

    December 02, 2019 —
    Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), controversial legislation which will have a substantial impact on California employers when it goes into effect on January 1, 2020. AB5 enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Under the ABC test established in Dynamex and now under AB5, a worker may be properly considered an independent contractor only if the hiring entity establishes all three of the following: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. Reprinted courtesy of Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears and Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law

    July 24, 2023 —
    The Second Circuit turned to English law to determine the obligations of the reinsurer. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Equitas Ins. Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12461 (2nd Cir. May 22, 2023). Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP) provided an umbrella policy to a predecessor of Dole Food Company for a policy period from October 1968 to October er 1971. Equitas then reinsured part of ICSOP's exposure for the same three-year period. English law governed the reinsurance policy. In 2009, homeowners in Carson, California sued Dole for polluting their soil and groundwater. Dole and ICSOP settled these claims and allocated $20 million of the settlement liability to the ICSOP-Dole policy, even thought the homeowners' property damage and personal injuries continued to accrue after the ICSOP-Dole policy period ended. In doing so, the settlement followed The California law for allocation, known as the "all sums rule." This rule treated any insurer whose policy was in effect during any portion of the time during which the continuing harm occurred as jointly and severally liability for all property damages or personal injuries caused by a pollutant. 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

    Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – Expert Testimony

    October 30, 2023 —
    In April, the Supreme Court sent a list of proposed amendments to Congress that amend the Federal Rules of Evidence. Absent action by Congress, the rules go into effect December 1, 2023. The proposed amendments affect Rules 106, 615 and, relevant to this article, 702. Rule 702 addresses testimony by an expert witness. The proposed rule reads as follows (new material is underlined; matters omitted are lined through): A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
    1. the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
    2. the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
    3. the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
    4. the expert has reliably applied expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com