BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington ada design expert witnessSeattle Washington stucco expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington building 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


    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    COVID-19 Response: Recent Executive Orders Present Opportunities for Businesses Seeking Regulatory and Enforcement Relief and Expedited Project Development

    A Call to Washington: Online Permitting Saves Money and the Environment

    Shimmick Gets Nod for Second Pilot Pile at Settling Millennium Tower

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Heatup of Giant DOE Nuclear Waste Melter Succeeds After 2022 Halt

    Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Appraisal Award for Damaged Roof Tiles Challenged

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    Project-Specific Commercial General Liability Insurance

    Haight’s San Diego Office is Growing with the Addition of New Attorneys

    Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

    Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

    Michigan Supreme Court Finds Faulty Subcontractor Work That Damages Insured’s Work Product May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under CGL Policy

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    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

    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

    Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    After 15 Years, Settlement Arrested at San Francisco's Millennium Tower

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Recent Florida Legislative Changes Shorten Both Statute of Limitation ("SOL") and Statute of Repose ("SOR") for Construction Defect Claims

    White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    Negligence of Property Appraiser

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

    City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    Time To “Construct” New Social Media Policies

    No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim

    City Sues over Leaking Sewer System

    Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise

    Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

    A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Seattle's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

    August 05, 2024 —
    The key risks that should always be taken into account when a contract is signed are risks associated with uncompensated delays and cost increases. Provisions relating to the scope of work deserve significant attention to help minimize these risks. Defining the scope of work is often put on the backburner while parties focus on negotiating the rest of the terms and conditions of the contract. And when these scopes are inserted, they are often not closely reviewed by attorneys who tend to defer to project personnel on scope. These situations can lead to costly disputes. Instead, make sure: (1) the correct plans and specifications have been referenced in the contract; (2) an attorney or his/her business counterpart is familiar with relevant specifications; (3) the exhibit containing the assumptions and clarifications is clearly written, has been coordinated with language in the body of the contract and can be clearly understood by attorneys and business people beyond the preconstruction personnel who drafted them; and (4) the contract addresses the order of precedence in the event of a conflict between or among contract provisions (including exhibits). With regard to specifications referenced above, an attorney review is advised because many specification sections, including submittal sections, change order sections, payment provisions and construction progress documentation sections, regularly vary from the negotiated sections of the actual contract. Contractors also unwittingly accept design risk through performance specifications, and the accompanying obligations and risks are underestimated by those tasked with the initial review of those documents. In sum, a clear scope is as important as clear terms and conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    April 09, 2014 —
    In a one billion dollar lawsuit, U.S. Navy sailors contend that they “suffered massive doses of radiation” from the Fukushima Dia-ichi nuclear power plant in Toyko, Japan while stationed on the USS Ronald Reagan, reported the Orange County Register. A tsunami (caused by a 9.0 earthquake) flooded the plant, “cutting off electrical power and disabling backup generators.” The USS Reagan was sent to provide aid, but the plant then “blew up” before they arrived. “Sailors on the flight deck said they felt a warm gust of air, followed by a sudden snow storm: radioactive steam,” according to the Orange County Register. “Freezing in the cold Pacific air. Blanketing their ship.” However, the Orange County Register posed the question, “Could the Reagan – one of the most advanced nuclear aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet – really not know that it was being showered with massive doses of radiation?” TEPCO, the company being sued by the sailors, answered that it’s “wholly implausible.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Structure of Champlain Towers North Appears Healthy

    August 04, 2021 —
    There is good news for the residents of the occupied Champlain Towers North, the 12-story residential condominium in Surfside, Fla., located a short distance up Collins Avenue from its near-twin Champlain Towers South, which failed unexpectedly June 24. The unstable remaining wing of the Champlain Towers South concrete structure was imploded July 4, after the partial progressive collapse that killed at least 94 people and left another 22 still missing. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    November 05, 2014 —
    The insured subcontractor sought coverage under its Builder's Risk policy for loss despite already being paid under contract the amount sought under the policy. MKB Constr. v. Am Zurich Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136096 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2014). MKB contracted with the Lower Yukon School District (LYSD) to place gravel fill for a new building pad upon which a school building would be placed in Emmonak, Alaska. The project site was built on tundra that melted in the summer, becoming marshy and pocketed by pools of standing water. LYSD provided the bidding contractors with information stating that settlements of 3 to 9 inches could be expected in areas with 30 inches of fill. The contract was awarded to MKB, who subsequently realized it had under bid the amount of gravel fill that would be required. The estimated difference in the amount bid and the amount that would be needed was 6,583 cubic yards. LYSD refused to increase the contract price. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Texas exclusions j(5) and j(6).

    April 27, 2011 —

    In Evanston Ins. Co. v. D&L Masonry of Lubbock, Inc., No. 07-10-00358-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 18, 2011), insured masonry subcontractor D&L sued its CGL insurer Evanston to recover costs incurred by D&L for the replacement of window frames damaged by D&L while performing masonry work adjacent to the window frames. The trial court granted summary judgment for D&L.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

    August 02, 2017 —
    It’s been a while since I talked mediation here at Construction Law Musings. Those that read regularly (thanks) have likely missed my musings on the topic. Those who read this construction blog regularly also know that I am both a Virginia Supreme Court certified general district court mediator and a huge advocate of mediation as a method to resolve construction disputes. While many of us think of mediation as a method to resolve the major disputes or litigation that occasionally rear their heads in the course of running a construction law practice or construction business, my experience as both a construction attorney and a mediator has taught me something: mediation works for all sizes of cases. As an advocate for my construction clients, I know that proper trial preparation requires the same diligence and attention to detail for a smaller case as it does for a larger case. While a smaller case in the Virginia general district court may not have the depositions, written discovery and motions practice that a Virginia circuit court case may have, it still requires witness preparation, document processing and review and many of the other aspects of a larger case. While construction litigation is never a money maker in the best of circumstances, in the smaller cases the attorney fees often total a larger percentage of the total potential recovery. For this reason, the small cases are almost better suited for a quick mediated resolution than the larger ones. The larger cases may cost more to prosecute or defend, but the fees are less likely to eat up such a large percentage of any recovery. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

    October 08, 2013 —
    The lawsuit from an Oregon school district over the faulty installation of an artificial playing field has been postponed. The chief financial officer of the Hillsboro School District noted that there is no new date set. Drainage problems caused depressions in the soccer field, leading to damage of the artificial turf. The district subsequently repaired the playing field. Two defendants, Mahlum Architects and American Sport Product Group, have already settled with the school district. The two final defendants are Robinson Construction and Geocon Northwest Inc. Robinson Construction built the field. None of the parties have released information about the settlements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    April 03, 2019 —
    In September 2018, in Baumgartner v. Timmins, 245 Ariz. 334, 429 P.3d 567, the Arizona Court of Appeals provided further clarification on what constitutes an “encumbrance” on a property for purposes of Arizona’s statutory scheme prohibiting the recording of “false documents.” The statute, A.R.S. § 33-420, prohibits the recording of documents that a person knows to be forged, are groundless, or that contain material misstatements (or false claims). A person who claims an “interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against” real property who records such documents can be held liable for $5,000 or treble the actual damages caused by the recording (whichever is greater), A.R.S. § 33-420(A), and perhaps even be found guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, A.R.S. § 33-420(E). At issue in Baumgartner were neighbors fighting about CC&Rs—a typical neighborhood fight. In 2015, some of the neighbors filed suit against the Timminses for violating the CC&Rs. The Timminses did not contest the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In what the Court of Appeals characterized as a lawsuit filed by the Timminses “in apparent response to the [first] lawsuit and resulting default judgment,” the Timminses created, signed, and recorded affidavits contending that the Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were themselves “in violation of several provisions of the CC&Rs.” The Plaintiffs then filed suit again against the Timminses, this time contending that the Timminses had violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording the affidavits because the affidavits, the Plaintiffs contended, created encumbrances on their properties. The Apache County Superior Court agreed, and issued a final judgment nullifying the recorded documents and awarding the Timminses damages, along with their attorneys’ fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com