BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness consultantSeattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington building expertSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington construction 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


    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

    VinFast Breaks Ground in North Carolina on its Promised $4B EV Plant

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Warning! Danger Ahead for Public Entities

    Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Contract Utility Company in Personal Injury Action

    No Coverage for Sink Hole Loss

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    N.J. Appellate Court Confirms that AIA Construction Contract Bars Insurer's Subrogation Claim

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”

    NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

    Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

    Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

    Trump Administration Announces New Eviction Moratorium

    A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

    Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks

    Don’t Miss the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar

    Balcony Collapses Killing Six People

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

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

    Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

    PPP Loan Extension Ending Aug. 8

    Search in Florida Collapse to Take Weeks; Deaths Reach 90

    Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twenty White and Williams Lawyers

    AEM Pursuing ISO Standard for Earthmoving Grade-Control Data

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

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging
    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. Drawing 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

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    March 28, 2012 —

    A number of news sources have reported on the recent death of Nevada construction defect attorney, Nancy Quon. Ms. Quon was implicated in a recent scandal in which a group conspired to control homeowner associations in order to divert construction defect lawsuits to the members of the conspiracy.

    Ms. Quon was found dead in her bathtub. The details are still under investigations. She and her boyfriend were accused of a failed arson/suicide scheme in 2010. Ms. Quon survived an attempt to burn down her home. Subsequently, her boyfriend obtained some gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GBH) for her, as part of another failed suicide attempt.

    Subsequent to Ms. Quon’s death, David Amesbury was found in California dead by hanging. Mr. Amesbury took a plea deal in the case, and he had admitted his role in providing legal and construction contracts to firms in the conspiracy. He was accused of fixing HOA elections.

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

    Read the full story…

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

    Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

    July 11, 2021 —
    You would think I wouldn’t have to discuss the absolute need to respond to any served pleadings, particularly after some of the prior examples of what can happen if you fail to respond. Of course, I wouldn’t be starting a post like this if those that were sued contacted an experienced attorney in a timely fashion and followed this advice. Yet another example of the disastrous results that can occur simply from failing to file responsive pleadings occurred last year in the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA. In Pro-Telligent, LLC v. Amex Int’l, Inc. the Court considered a claim for breach of contract (among other causes of action) by Pro-Telligent against Amex. The operative facts are that Pro-Telligent was a subcontractor to Amex that claimed it was unpaid in the amount of $279,660.27, its Complaint was served on January 7, 2021, and Amex did not respond within the required 21-day window. The Court then held a hearing on February 28, 2020, regarding the validity of the Clerk of Court’s entry of default per the rules of court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Surplus Lines Carrier Can Force Arbitration in Louisiana Despite Statute Limiting Arbitration

    February 12, 2024 —
    The federal district court granted the surplus lines insurer's motion to compel arbitration despite a Louisiana statute barring policies from depriving courts of jurisdiction in cases against insurers. Queens Beauty Supply, LLC v. Indep.Specialty Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195372 (E.D. La. Oct. 31, 2023). Hurricane Ida damaged property leased by Queens. Queens filed suit against its insurer, Independent Specialty Insurance Company (ISIC) for breath of contract and bad faith for failing to pay the full amount Queens contends it was owed for the damage. ISIC moved to compel arbitration. Queens argued that ISIC waived its right to enforce the policy's arbitration clause by its actions before the court, including failing to opt-out of the settlement program adopted for Hurricane Ida cases. The court disagreed, ISIC had taken no overt act that evidenced a desire to resolve the instant dispute through litigation rather than arbitration. ISIC asserted as an affirmative defense that Queens's claims were barred by the arbitration clause in the policy. ISIC then participated in the settlement program for Hurricane Ida cases, which evidences a desire to settle the dispute, not to resolve it by litigation. Therefore, ISIC had not waived its right to arbitrate. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    November 26, 2014 —
    In Gottschall v. Crane Co., (No. A136516, Filed 10/8/2014, published 10/22/2014), the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held a company that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products could not prevail under the “sophisticated user” doctrine based on the contention that a “sophisticated intermediary” existed, in an action brought by the end user of the products. Decedent Robert Gottschall worked in a variety of shipyards for the U.S. Navy between 1957 and 1989. Defendant Crane Co. (“Crane”) manufactured and sold products containing asbestos to the Navy during that time. During his work at the various shipyards, decedent was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Know Your Obligations Under Both the Prime Contract and Subcontract

    December 02, 2015 —
    A recent case out of New Mexico highlights the importance for subcontractors to review their contract with the general and the contract between the general and the owner. In Centex/Worthgroup, LLC v. Worthgroup Architects, L.P, the architect claimed that the limitation of liability clause in the prime contract trumped the provisions of the subcontract. The court disagreed and ruled that the specific provision in the subcontract controlled. In the case, a general contractor was hired to expand and renovate a resort. The general contractor subcontracted with an architect to design a mechanically stabilized earth wall. The prime contract contained a limitation of liability clause that states:
    general contractor shall require its design professional Subcontractor(s) to obtain insurance in an amount not less than $3,000,000. Owner agrees that it will limit general contractor’s liability to Owner for any errors or omissions in the design of the Project to whatever sums Owner is able to collect from the above described professional errors and omissions insurance carrier.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    Rejection’s a Bear- Particularly in Construction

    December 23, 2024 —
    As I read through this week’s cases published in Virginia Lawyers Weekly, I came across a case posing an interesting question. The question is, “If your bid is rejected along with everyone else’s, can you complain?” The short answer set out by the Rockingham County, Virginia Circuit Court is “No.” In the case of General Excavation v. City of Harrisonburg the Court looked at the Virginia Public Procurement Act’s bid protest provisions in Va. Code 2.2-4360 and 2.2-4364(C) in the context of General Excavation’s protest of the City’s failure to award it (or anyone else for that matter) the contract on which it was the low bidder. The controlling section of the statute allows a challenge to the award or proposed award of a contract. In defending the action, the City of Harrisonburg argued that, because the Procurement Act waived some of the city’s sovereign immunity, it must be read strictly. The city further argued (somewhat ironically) that, because no award of the contract was given or even proposed, General Excavation could not bring suit because it would not be challenging the “proposed award or award” of a contract. Not surprisingly, the Rockingham County court held with the City and strictly construed the statute against General Excavation in finding that General Excavation did not have the standing necessary to bring suit under the statute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

    May 24, 2011 —

    Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

    Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

    “Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

    In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

    Read the court’s decision

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

    Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

    April 15, 2015 —
    The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015). Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007. Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied. 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