BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington soil failure expert witnessSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington construction expert witnessesSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington consulting general contractor
    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


    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Construction Defect Suit Can Continue Against Plumber

    Singapore Unveils Changes to Make Public Housing More Affordable

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Vacant Property and the Right of Redemption in Pennsylvania

    Building in the Age of Technology: Improving Profitability and Jobsite Safety

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design

    Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico

    Quick Note: Insurer’s Denial of Coverage Waives Right to Enforce Post-Loss Policy Conditions

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Indemnity: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You!

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020

    Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

    Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    No Damages for Delay May Not Be Enforceable in Virginia

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    UK Construction Output Rises Unexpectedly to Strongest Since May

    Chapman Glucksman Press Release

    Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

    San Francisco Airport’s Terminal 1 Aims Sky High

    ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast

    Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

    What The U.S. Can Learn from China to Bring Its Buildings to New Heights

    General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

    No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

    Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts

    Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations

    A Reminder to Get Your Contractor’s License in Virginia

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry

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

    Acquisition, Development, and Construction Lending Conditions Ease

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services

    June 21, 2017 —
    California Business & Professions Code section 7031(a) requires a party to have contractor’s license in order to maintain an action for compensation for services performed for which a contractor’s license is needed. In Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B269186 (2017 WL 2544856) (Cal. Ct. App. June 13, 2017), the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District considered the scope of this statute in denying, in part, Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc.’s (“Phoenix Pipeline”) appeal of a trial court ruling granting Space Exploration Technologies Corporation’s (“SpaceX”) demurrer to Phoenix Pipeline’s second amended complaint, without leave to amend. Phoenix Pipeline filed the underlying lawsuit for, among other claims, breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing arising from an agreement with SpaceX for Phoenix Pipeline to perform various plumbing, concrete removal and electrical services. Phoenix Pipeline alleged SpaceX paid for such services from 2010 to October 2013, but failed to pay Phoenix for services performed from October 2013 to August 2014, totaling just over $1,000,000. According to Phoenix Pipeline, this work was performed pursuant to a series of invoices, which constituted individual agreements between SpaceX and Phoenix Pipeline. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November

    January 28, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose at a slower pace in the year ended in November, a sign the industry struggled to find momentum even amid low mortgage rates. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values increased 4.3 percent from November 2013 after rising 4.5 percent in the year ended in October, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median projection of 28 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 4.3 percent year-over-year advance. Nationally, prices rose 4.7 percent after a 4.6 percent gain in the year ended in October. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
    Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

    Former NYC Condo Empire Executive Arrested for Larceny, Tax Fraud

    March 11, 2024 —
    A former New York executive facing lawsuits over the collapse of real estate empire HFZ Capital Group has been arrested in Miami, charged with grand larceny and tax fraud. Nir Meir, 48, was arrested Monday, a spokesperson for the Miami-Dade Police Department confirmed. Meir was detained on an out-of-state warrant, suggesting his arrest may be the result of an investigation by law enforcement in New York. A spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Meir’s attorney also didn’t immediately respond to an email. Meir, the former managing principal of HFZ Capital Group, has been battling multiple lawsuits in New York over his involvement in the once-prominent real estate firm. He’s denied wrongdoing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ava Benny-Morrison, Bloomberg

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    July 22, 2019 —
    In a favorable case for insureds, the Fifth District Court of Appeal maintained that “when an insurer breaches an insurance contract, the insured is entitled to recover more than the pecuniary loss involved in the balance of the payments due under the policy in consequential damages, provided the damages were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the [insurance] contract.” Manor House, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1403b (Fla. 5thDCA 2019) (internal citations and quotation omitted). Thus, consequential damages can be recovered against an insurer in a breach of contract action (e.g., breach of the insurance policy) if the damages can be proven and were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the insurance contract. In Manor House, the trial court entered summary judgment against the insured holding the insured could not seek lost rental income in its breach of contract action against Citizens Property Insurance because the property insurance policy did not provide coverage for lost rent. However, the Fifth District reversed this ruling because the trial court denied the insured the opportunity to prove whether the parties contemplated that the insured, an apartment complex owner, would suffer lost rental income (consequential damages) if the insurer breached its contractual duties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    The Ghosts of Baha Mar: How a $3.5 Billion Paradise Went Bust

    January 06, 2016 —
    Beyond the tropical waters, across palm-fringed sands and behind locked gates, looms Baha Mar -- the largest and, at $3.5 billion, priciest resort in the Caribbean. Here, no one frolics pool-side, pina colada in hand, or hits irons on the Jack Nicklaus golf course. No slot machines jingle-jangle in the casino. The Flamingo Bar, the Brasserie des Arts and the Cartier boutique lie dark. On this bright October morning in the Bahamas, all 2,200 guest rooms are empty. The quiet is almost spooky here on the outskirts of Nassau, where the waterscape frills of nearby Paradise Island give way to the vast ghost-resort that is Baha Mar. Just how the place ended up like this -- in a bankruptcy so colossal that it’s jeopardizing the Bahamas’s credit rating -- is the biggest business story to hit this Caribbean nation for as long as anyone here can remember. It stretches far beyond the white beaches and across time zones, to none other than the State Council of China. Reprinted courtesy of John Lippert, Bloomberg and Dawn McCarty, Bloomberg Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

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

    February 27, 2019 —
    On October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision. The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond. Reprinted courtesy of Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

    April 15, 2024 —
    The University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed. Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    April 01, 2015 —
    The prefix "cyber" was coined about 70 years ago to describe early stage computers, computer networks and virtual reality. Since then, the term has been used as a prefix for hundreds of words, however, the most recent (and newsworthy) usage is its link to the word “risk” and the correlative term “security.” Two sides of the same coin and not a day goes by when a data breach is not reported and the importance of cyber risk and cybersecurity underscored. Insurers, like other financial institutions, are at the forefront of the “cyber-curve.” Many insurers are particularly vulnerable on at least two fronts: (1) from a cyber risk/ cyber invasion perspective and; (2) an insurer’s insurance policy exposure, intentional and not, to third-parties under cyber policies, and even policies such as CGLs that may inadvertently cover such risks. A number of federal and state regulators have spoken to this issue in an effort to address cyber risks with varying degrees of specificity. At last count, in addition to a myriad of existing and proposed state laws and regulations, there are at least nine federal Bills under consideration by Congress (covering six federal agencies including one new agency) that seek to impose regulatory requirements upon the cyber-arena. Those Bills empower six regulatory agencies; including one new agency. Initially, some states required companies to notify affected persons of a data breach. As breaches became more serious, state and federal regulators sought to increase the industry’s awareness of the potential exposures and provided instructions on appropriate steps to protect data from cyber invasions. Now, state insurance regulators are examining not only the threat of data theft, but the balance sheet impact of insurance exposures for underwriting such risks for third-parties’ under cyber risk policies. The regulatory efforts continue to multiply in an effort to stem some of these risks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com