BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building code expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington construction cost estimating expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington contractor 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


    Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"

    Incorporate Sustainability in Building Design to Meet Green Construction Goals

    Waiver of Subrogation and Lack of Contractual Privity Bars Commercial Tenants’ Claims

    FEMA Fire Management Assistance Granted for the French Fire

    Bill to Include Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Introduced in New Jersey

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

    The New York Lien Law - Top Ten Things You Ought to Know

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

    White and Williams Selected in the 2024 Best Law Firms ranked by Best Lawyers®

    Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

    First Suit Filed for Losses Caused by COVID-19

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Mass. Gas Leak Follows NTSB Final Report, Call for Reforms

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

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Third Circuit Vacates Judgment for Insurer on Alleged Construction Defect Claim

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

    Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    So You Want to Arbitrate? Better Make Sure Your Contract Covers All Bases

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

    Construction Attorneys Get an AI Assist in Document Crunch

    Hawaii Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement on Volcano Damage

    Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

    Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”

    War-Torn Ukraine Looks to Europe’s Green Plans for Reconstruction Ideas

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    Concerns Over Unstable Tappan Zee Bridge Push Back Opening of New NY Bridge's Second Span

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    New Pedestrian, Utility Bridge Takes Shape on Everett Waterfront

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    Powering Goal Congruence in Construction Through Smart Contracts
    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

    Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease

    May 06, 2019 —
    If you are leasing space in a building, there may come a time when you receive a request from your landlord to fill out and sign an estoppel certificate. Estoppel certificates are usually sent to tenants in connection with the sale or refinance of a building, and a third party may rely on the accuracy of the statements and information contained in the estoppel certificate in connection with that transaction. Estoppel certificates can range from a very simple, one-page document, to several pages. I’ve received an estoppel certificate in the mail. What do I do now? Consider the following: Check your lease. Your lease may require you to deliver the signed estoppel certificate and may even give you a timeframe within which you are required to return it. A form of estoppel certificate may also be included in your lease as an exhibit. If you’ve previously agreed to a form of estoppel certificate in your lease, check to ensure the one you have received matches the form you previously agreed to and if it doesn’t make sure to review it carefully to make sure it is acceptable. Review the estoppel certificate and confirm that all of the information is accurate. Be on the lookout for any terms or provisions that you did not agree to in your lease. If it seems like the landlord is trying to modify your lease, you likely do not need to consent to the change in this document. Cross off (or modify or delete, if you have an electronic copy) any information that is inaccurate. Fill in all blanks (if the blank is not applicable, write “N/A”), and if any exhibits are referenced in the body of the document, make sure they are actually attached. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lauren Podgorski, Snell & Wilmer
    Ms. Podgorski may be contacted at lpodgorski@swlaw.com

    Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

    April 11, 2022 —
    In Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:
    "Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    March 28, 2018 —
    First, a little history: as you know, means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures are all part of the Contractor’s responsibility on a construction site. However, when the AIA A201 was last revised, in 2007, there was a provision put in for that rare time when the Contract Documents gave specific instructions concerning a particular construction method. If the Contractor viewed such instructions as unsafe, he was to give notice to the Owner and Architect, and was not to proceed with that portion of the Work without further written instructions from the Architect. If the Architect directed him to proceed, the Contractor was absolved from any risks with following that instruction. Instead, the Owner assumed the responsibility for any loss or damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

    “Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”

    Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.

    Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”

    One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”

    As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”

    Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.

    Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.

    The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    April 14, 2011 —

    The Florida Property Bill (HBB 803) was passed by the Economic Affairs Committee by a vote of 11-7, according to Property Casualty 360, after adopting nine new amendments. The additions to the bill included limiting notice of claims to a set number of years, extending the statute of limitation on property claims from five years to six years, among others.

    HB 803 and SB 408, the Senate companion bill, focus primarily on residential property insurance. They make changes to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, while also promoting increased notification of policy changes to policyholders. Sections of the bills provide minor fixes such as renaming Citizens Property Insurance Corporation to Taxpayer-Funded Property Insurance Corporation. However, other sections of the bills contain more significant policy changes such as sinkhole coverage and hurricane claims.

    The bills’ intent, according to the SunSentinel.com, is to reduce fraudulent claims and to bring new insurers into the insurance market. However, SunSentinel.com also reports that the bills may drastically increase property insurance premiums.

    Read the full Property Casualty 360 article...

    Read the full Sun Sentinel article...

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

    Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

    March 09, 2020 —
    Indemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement. Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:
    • Have you included all necessary parties?
      • Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
      • A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard Mullin
    Ms. Oleson may be contacted at AOleson@sheppardmullin.com

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    April 20, 2020 —
    In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted. Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Van Patten may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com

    Construction Contracts and The Uniform Commercial Code: When Does it Apply and Understanding the Pre-Dominant Factor Test

    November 01, 2022 —
    The Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) replaces the common law in many commercial transactions, providing provisions and a framework governing the conduct of business. The UCC attempts to develop uniformity among state laws on commercial matters as many of these contracts involve parties from different states. The UCC has been adopted in almost all states, including Washington, and substantially mirror each other throughout the country. The question that is most commonly presented, in the Construction law context, is when does the UCC apply and control? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com