BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington architecture expert witnessSeattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington construction cost estimating 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


    Building Amid the COVID Challenge

    Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

    BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Thanks for My 6th Year Running as a Construction Litigation Super Lawyer

    Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

    DC Metro Extension’s Precast Supplier Banned from Federal Contracts

    Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

    Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

    Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

    Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"

    Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

    Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

    NCDOT Aims to Reopen Helene-damaged Interstate 40 by New Year's Day

    Create a Culture of Safety to Improve Labor Recruitment Efforts

    TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver

    Work to Solve the Mental Health Crisis in Construction

    Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida

    Court Addresses HOA Attempt to Restrict Short Term Rentals

    Owner Can’t Pursue Statutory Show Cause Complaint to Cancel Lien… Fair Outcome?

    A Murder in Honduras Reveals the Dark Side of Clean Energy

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar

    Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    On Rehearing, Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual-Liability Exclusion Does Not Apply

    MBS’s $500 Billion Desert Dream Just Keeps Getting Weirder

    Elyria, Ohio, to Invest $250M to Halt Illegal Sewage into Black River

    How to Cool Down Parks in Hot Cities

    After Pittsburgh Bridge Collapse, Fast-Rising Replacement Emerges

    Defects, Delays and Change Orders

    The Heat Is On

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

    Dispute Resolution in Your Construction Contract

    Housing Stocks Rally at End of November

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    Tropical Storms Pile Up Back-to-Back-to-Back Out West

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    Benefit of the Coblentz Agreement and Consent Judgment
    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

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

    April 15, 2015 —
    In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property. In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

    July 13, 2020 —
    According to a recent study conducted by the Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois, more than 100,000 small businesses (firms with fewer than 500 employees) representing 2% of small businesses in the America have closed their doors permanently due to the coronavirus. The next case, although about events occurring before COVID-19, provides a glimpse of what litigation may look like in the intervening months and years as companies struggle to keep their doors open. The Wanke Case Waterproofing company Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. sued a former employee, Scott Keck, and his competing company, WP Solutions, Inc., for trade secret misappropriation and obtained a judgment for $1,190,929. At the time, general contractor AV Builder Corp. had hired WP Solutions as a waterproofing subcontractor on fire residential and commercial projects. In the face of the judgment obtained by Wanke, Keck declared bankruptcy and dissolved WP Solutions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    May 18, 2020 —
    In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (No. H044890; filed 1/16/20, ord. pub. 2/13/20), a California appeals court ruled that commercial general liability insurance for personal and advertising injury, defined to include malicious prosecution, does not cover a Walker Process antitrust cause of action under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act for using a fraudulently procured patent to attempt to monopolize the market. Travelers insured KLA under commercial liability policies with coverage for personal and advertising injury liability, which was defined as “injury, other than ‘advertising injury’, caused by. . . (2) Malicious prosecution.” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion

    September 10, 2018 —
    In a victory for policyholders, and an honorable mention for Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the dispersal of concrete dust that damaged inventory stored in an aircraft part distributor’s warehouse was a pollutant, as defined by the policy, but that it also constituted “smoke” as that term was defined in the dictionary, thereby implicating an exception to the policy’s pollution exclusion. The Court then granted summary judgment for the policyholder, who had suffered a $3.2 million loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    January 28, 2015 —
    In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, filed 1/27/15), a California appeals court held that the use of a mailing address to send policies and renewals into California did not support jurisdiction for a California resident's bad faith lawsuit against a Michigan insurer over property coverage for a fire loss to a building in Arkansas. In Greenwell, the insured was a California resident engaged in real estate investment. He purchased an apartment building in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the services of an insurance broker in Little Rock, he purchased a package of general liability and commercial property insurance for the building from Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan insurer not licensed in California. The policy listed the insured's business address in California, the policy was mailed there, and renewed three times via the insured's California address. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2021

    November 23, 2020 —
    White and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Media Law. Our Delaware, New York and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Why’d You Have To Say That?

    October 09, 2023 —
    A surety seeking collateral from indemnitors filed suit in federal court in Louisiana pursuant to a forum selection clause in the indemnity agreement between the parties. The indemnitors were being called upon to provide collateral as a result of defaults on two Louisiana Department of Transportation projects. Seeking to move the dispute to Louisiana state court from federal court, the indemnitors filed a forum non conveniens motion. Among the arguments of the indemnitors removing the case out of federal court was the doctrine of “direct-benefits” estoppel – a policy which “‘holds a non-signatory to a clause in a contract if it “knowingly exploits the agreement” containing the clause.’ In re Lloyd's Reg. N. Am., Inc., 780 F.3d 283, 291 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov't of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2003)).” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

    October 11, 2017 —
    In URS Corporation v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (No. G055271 filed September 26, 2017), Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District dealt with, for the first time, the question of whether an appeal of an attorney disqualification order results in an automatic stay of the trial proceedings and, if so, how far the automatic stay extends. The underlying action involved a construction dispute between a contractor and subcontractor. During the pendency of that action, one party’s counsel filed a motion to disqualify another party’s counsel based on an alleged misuse of mediation-privilege protected documents. The trial court granted the disqualification motion and the disqualified counsel promptly filed a notice of appeal. The trial court then denied an application to stay proceedings pending the appeal, rejecting the assertion that the appeal automatically stayed the underlying proceedings. Reprinted courtesy of Howard M. Garfield, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Garfield may be contacted at hgarfield@hbblaw.com Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of