BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington architectural expert witnessSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering 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


    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

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

    Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

    Foreign Entry into the United States Construction, Infrastructure and PPP Markets

    How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    Florida Lawmakers Fail to Reach Agreement on Condominium Safety Bill

    The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

    Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses Waiver and Estoppel in Context of Suit Limitation Provision in Property Policy

    Seattle Independent Contractor Ordinance – Pitfalls for Unwary Construction Professionals

    Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

    New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

    Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake

    No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Power of Workers Compensation Immunity on Construction Project

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

    Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Construction Feb. Jobs Jump by 61,000, Jobless Rate Up from Jan.

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    COVID-izing Your Construction Contract

    The Law Clinic Paves Way to the Digitalization of Built Environment Processes

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

    Record Keeping—the Devil’s in the Details

    California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    Pay Inequities Are a Symptom of Broader Gender Biases, Studies Show

    ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims

    Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations

    Boston Team Secures Summary Judgment Dismissal on Client’s Behalf in Serious Personal Injury Case

    Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Provision Relating to Statutory Authority for Constructing and Operating Sports and Tourism Complexes

    Labor Intensive

    Just Because You Allege There Was an Oral Contract Doesn’t Mean You’re Off the Hook for Attorneys’ Fees if you Lose

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    “But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit

    What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill
    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

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

    August 17, 2020 —
    Before Florida updated its laws for construction bonds, there were some significant differences between how liens and bond claims were litigated. Forms and procedures lacked uniformity that created unnecessary challenges for the construction industry and legal practitioners serving the industry. Now, more consistency among the laws should benefit contractors, as well as lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers. Since the updates were instated in October 2019, some of the procedures and rules used for lien enforcement have been extended to bond claims, which may make it easier to resolve differences over payment and performance. That should come as a relief to local contractors and law firms, as well as to the numerous developers and construction companies based outside of Florida that operate in the state or are considering doing so. Florida is now the number one destination for new residents, especially from high-tax states, according to IRS data. With them come new homes, retail centers, offices, industrial space, roads and other infrastructure in what is now the third-most-populous state in the nation. Reprinted courtesy of Gary L. Brown, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Brown may be contacted at gbrown@kklaw.com

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    December 22, 2019 —
    Developers in California know that getting approval to build new housing projects can be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But a new policy is finally coming into full effect which could help developers cut through those barriers. SB 35, enacted in 2017, streamlines the approval process for housing developments in areas with inadequate housing supply, so long as the developments meet certain criteria. We have written elsewhere about the initial impacts of SB 35. SB 35 has successfully allowed some developers to obtain their entitlements quickly and easily through a streamlined process, but some local governments have resisted the use of SB 35. For example, the City of Los Altos denied an application that attempted to obtain streamlining through SB 35, prompting a nonprofit housing organization to sue. In Cupertino, the Planning Commission Chairman advocated in April 2019 for rescinding the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the Vallco Mall, which would include over 2,400 units of housing, while some residents have sued to block the development. As a result, it is crucial for developers to understand the details of SB 35 and make sure to meet all of its requirements. Any misstep may allow a recalcitrant local government to deny that a development project qualifies for SB 35 treatment and attempt to block it. In November 2018, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released Guidelines to clarify the criteria for SB 35 and assist cities in determining whether projects qualify for streamlining. Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury attorneys Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Walker may be contacted at alexander.walker@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

    October 21, 2024 —
    Seeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies. While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    November 27, 2013 —
    The Bardwells bought a new home in the Philadelphia area in 2000. Now, thirteen years later they’ve learned that their house has been slowly rotting away due to moisture trapped beneath the stucco. And they’re not alone. The O’Days bought a home for about $1 million, and it now needs about $200,000 in repairs. All the stucco has been removed and their home is being rebuilt. Monica Bardwell said that “everything was rotted,” and “there was not a piece of good wood to be salvaged.” Other area homeowners are finding similar problems. Wendy Meyer had her home inspected by Kevin Thompson. Mr. Thompson said, “I shouldn’t be able to take a piece of plywood like that and crush it in my hands completely disintegrated.” Mr. Thompson described it as due to “faulty construction,” which he estimated accounted for such damage “95 percent of the time.” The Pennsylvania Builders Association says that diligent homeowners can head off problems with maintenance. “Make sure water isn’t continually on the outside of the stucco,” said Brent Sailhamer of the PBA. “Make sure there are no large cracks where water can seep behind the stucco.” For those who bought their homes as far back as the Bardwells, it’s already too late to sue anyone. Pennsylvania construction defect law allows 12 years for lawsuits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    August 17, 2011 —

    Have you ever considered a “Safe Harbor Provision” for your Owner-Architect or Owner-Engineer contract? Maybe it is time that you do.

    As you are (probably too well) aware, on every construction project there are changes. Some of these are due to the owner’s change of heart, value engineering concerns, contractor failures, and material substitutions. Some may be because of a design error, omission, or drawing conflict. It happens.

    A “Safe Harbor Provision” is a provision that establishes an acceptable percentage of increased construction costs (that is, a percentage of the project’s contingency). The idea is that if the construction changes attributable to the designer is within this percentage, no claim will be made by the Owner for design defects.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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

    Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014

    January 13, 2014 —
    Construction Digital reports that five regions should see a boom in residential construction in 2014, based on research from McGraw-Hill Construction. According to the report, the rise in residential construction is likely to be as much as 26% in single-family housing, with an 11% rise expected in multi-family housing. The regions that should benefit the most from these are Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Denver, and Los Angeles. Cities that want to be in on the 2014 boom are advised to “lower permit fees,” offer “construction grants and loans,” and to get the word out to contractors that the area is going to provide a favorable environment for contractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supplement to New California Construction Laws for 2019

    January 08, 2019 —
    A representative of the Contractors State License Board would like to emphasize a benefit of SB 1042 not mentioned in the report below that Smith Currie published recently. Importantly, the new law allows the CSLB to work with licensees, resolve complaints informally, and avoid a full Administrative Procedure Act hearing brought by the California Attorney General’s office. If the CSLB and licensee are unable to resolve a citation informally, the licensee is still entitled to the APA hearing. Contractors receiving CSLB citations are wise to avail themselves of this process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. McLennon, Smith Currie
    Mr. McLennon may be contacted at dfmclennon@smithcurrie.com

    Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance

    August 27, 2014 —
    Early estimates suggest the economic losses from Sunday’s 6.0-magnitude earthquake in Northern California, the largest quake to hit the Golden State in 25 years, could hit $1 billion. When it comes to rebuilding, much of the cost will come out of people’s own pockets. The percentage of homeowners with earthquake insurance in California and across the U.S. has declined, despite rising estimates of the risk of an earthquake. A survey by the Insurance Information Institute, a nonprofit that’s funded by the insurance industry, found that 7 percent of U.S. homeowners have earthquake insurance, down from 13 percent just two years ago. In the West, ground zero for U.S. quakes, 10 percent of homeowners have coverage, down from 22 percent a year ago; in California, about 12 percent do, according to the California Earthquake Authority. But as fewer people opt for earthquake insurance, the government is upping its assessment of the risk of a sizable shake. Last month, the U.S. Geological Survey updated its seismic hazard maps for the first time since 2008. The update showed an increased earthquake risk for almost half the country. Parts of Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, among others, moved into the top two hazard zones. The San Francisco Bay area, for example, shows a 63 percent chance of one or more major earthquakes before 2036, according to the agency. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alyssa Abkowitz, Bloomberg