BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington ada design expert witnessSeattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington construction code 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


    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

    California’s Housing Costs Endanger Growth, Analyst Says

    Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    Narberth Mayor Urges Dubious Legal Action

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

    When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Noncumulation Clause Limits Coverage to One Occurrence

    Hyundai to Pay 47M to Settle Construction Equipment's Alleged Clean Air Violations

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

    Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

    Georgia Appellate Court Supports County Claim Against Surety Company’s Failure to Pay

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

    Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

    Firm Leadership – New Co-Chairs for the Construction Law Practice Group

    COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    Home Numbers Remain Small While Homes Get Bigger

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    US-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar Panels

    Waiving The Right to Arbitrate Under Federal Law

    Repairs to Hurricane-damaged Sanibel Causeway Completed in 105 Days

    Kahana Feld Receives 2024 OCCDL Top Legal Organizations for DEI Award

    When Licensing Lapses: How One Contractor Lost a $1 Million Dispute

    No Indemnity Coverage Where Insured Suffers No Loss

    Construction Spending Drops in March

    Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing

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

    Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

    “Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers
    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

    How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages

    April 04, 2022 —
    The jury verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit against companies involved in a 2019 Seattle crane collapse that killed four people split damages among three different companies—and also blamed a fourth firm that wasn't a defendant—but not in a way that matched the state safety fines proposed against the firms. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    March 27, 2019 —
    What may be the nation’s largest dam removal project—delayed for years by regulatory and legal disputes of a utility, stakeholders and states over licensing and environmental permits—now may have new momentum after a hard-hitting January federal appeals court ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

    February 05, 2014 —
    A lawsuit that’s created a “four-year legal battle” over alleged construction defects at the Diamond Pointe Condominium Tower in Lake Texoma, Texas may soon be going to trial, according to KTEN News. A lawyer representing the Diamond Pointe condominiums stated that “he has 15 witnesses lined up for a two-week trial.” KTEN News reported that according to court papers, “the Association alleges issues with the elevator, doors not opening properly, cracks, water leaks, and septic containment system leaks over the past decade.” Furthermore, the Association president Dan Baucum said to KTEN, “There were some foundation repairs that we needed to do and there are some problems with the building. It was not built to the specifications, at least that's what we're alleging, and that has allowed some water seepage in certain areas.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

    January 02, 2024 —
    Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. 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

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    December 02, 2015 —
    Tort law is aimed at providing compensation to the victims of negligence. Tort law encourages plaintiffs to cast a wide net, pursuing claims or suits against not only those whose fault seems manifestly primary, but also against defendants whose causal exposure is minimal, against those whose exposure is purely by operation of law. As discussed in the first installment of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity: Problems with Common Law," three common law principles – vicarious liability, joint and several liability, and common law indemnity – cause some parties to pay in excess of their actual degree of causal fault. Contractual indemnity can remedy that harsh result. Part Two: Components of an Effective Provision Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of financial consequences from tort exposure, including civil damages, defense fees, expert fees, and litigation expenses. Such contracts permit indemnity even where the underlying damage was incurred due to a degree of negligence or fault on the part of the Indemnitee. Such contracts can also allow an Indemnitee to shift to the Indemnitor the risk of loss for someone from whom the Indemnitor would otherwise be immune from suit (e.g., the Indemnitor’s employees). A well-written contract can even convert an entity which is an Indemnitor as to one party (e.g., a general contractor which has to indemnify a property owner) into an Indemnitee as to another party (e.g., a subcontractor) for the very same risk. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    October 10, 2013 —
    The Texas Supreme Court held that a home builder was covered for the voluntary removal and replacement of a defective insulation product it had installed in hundreds of homes. Lennar Corp. v. Market Am. Ins. Co., 2013 Tex. LEXIS 597 (Tex. Sup. Ct. Aug. 23, 2013). Lennar built homes using an exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS). It was subsequently determined that EIFS trapped water inside homes with wood-frame walls, causing rot and structural damage, mildew and mold, and termite infestation. Lennar decided to contact all its homeowners and offer to remove the EIFS and replace it with conventional stucco. Lennar notified its insurers that it would seek indemnification for the costs. The insurers refused to participate in Lennar's proactive efforts, preferring to wait and respond to homeowners' claims one by one. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

    September 10, 2014 —
    Public owners, as well as private owners and tenants of commercial and retail properties, are at risk of lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related state law alleging that their facilities are not accessible by those with disabilities. A common misperception among private owners and tenants is that facilities constructed before the ADA went into effect in 1992 are exempt or “grandfathered” from the ADA’s requirements. Not so. At least generally. If, however, you are a public entity, there is such an exception. Lucky you. Under the ADA, public facilities constructed prior to January 26, 1992 need not be “accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities” so long as a public entity’s “service[s], program[s] and activit[ies], when viewed in [their] entirety, [are] readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Known as “program accessibility,” the exception has left many public entities scratching their heads as to what they can and must do. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    April 06, 2011 —

    On February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.

    The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.

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