BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle 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


    Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado

    HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

    Res Judicata Bars Insured from Challenging Insurer's Use of Schedule to Deduct Depreciation from the Loss

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

    Manhattan Developer Breaks Ground on $520 Million Project

    To Ease Housing Crunch, Theme Parks Are Becoming Homebuilders

    Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine

    Force Majeure Recommendations

    Insurer Must Defend Construction Defect Claims

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

    A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

    Contract And IP Implications Of Design Professionals Monetizing Non-Fungible Tokens Comprising Digital Construction Designs

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

    Three Reasons Lean Construction Principles Are Still Valid

    Want to Stay Up on Your Mechanic’s Lien Deadlines? Write a Letter or Two

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

    Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation

    Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge

    Protecting and Perfecting Your Mechanics Lien when the Property Owner Files Bankruptcy

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    Hennigh Law Corporation Wins Award Against Viracon, Inc In Defective Gray PIB Case

    New York Establishes a Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

    Million-Dollar Home Sales Thrive While Low End Stumbles

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures

    North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage

    EEOC Sues Schuff Steel, J.A. Croson in New Racial Harassment Cases

    Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Ensuing Losses From Faulty Workmanship Must be Covered

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case

    Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Defense Dept. IG: White House Email Stonewall Stalls Border Wall Contract Probe

    Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting Fraud

    Governor Ducey Vetoes Water and Development Bills

    Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes Six Partners and Three Practices at Lewis Brisbois

    Boston’s Tunnel Project Plagued by Water

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Designing the Process to Deliver Zero-Carbon Construction – Computational Design in Practice

    Colorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable

    Golf Resorts Offering Yoga, Hovercraft Rides to the Green

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/11/23) – Construction Tech, Housing Market Confidence, and Decarbonization
    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. Leveraging 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

    Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud

    November 18, 2011 —

    A Pennsylvania contractor in prison for fraud has been convicted with insurance fraud. The York Daily Record reports that Steven D. Gebhart was already in jail for fraud for about $350,000 for work he either failed to finish or even start or by using substandard materials and practices when he was convicted of insurance fraud. Gebbert’s offices were destroyed in a fire that was later determined to be arson. He was not charged with this, but instead for overestimating his losses to the insurance company. Sentencing for the fraud charge will be on December 21.

    Read the full story…

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

    OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

    November 27, 2013 —
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued $400,000 in fines to two contactors who were involved with the collapse of a building in Philadelphia. Six people died and 14 more were injured in an adjacent building. OSHA concluded that the two firms, Campbell Construction and S&R Contracting, violated workplace safety regulations 12 times in their demolition of the building. According to OSHA, Campbell Construction removed structural supports and portions of the lower floors of the building while upper stories were still being demolished. Both firms failed to provide its workers with fall protection equipment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather

    January 29, 2024 —
    As evidenced by the extraordinary heat in the Southwest, a string of tornadoes in South and Midwest, and heavy rains in California and Florida, 2023 was a banner year for extreme weather. However, 2024 may be no different, which means now is the time for businesses to rethink the way they approach volatile weather, as well as the frequency and severity of storms and natural disasters. The risks and challenges that businesses face as extreme weather becomes stronger and causes more property damage, requires innovative technology with specialized insurance solutions. Through updated building codes, advancements in technology and meaningful infrastructure improvements, businesses can make a difference in protecting their property and reducing losses. Stronger Building Codes To Withstand Storms It is not uncommon to see the destruction that a hurricane or tornado leaves behind. However, stronger building codes are one of the best ways to make sure property can withstand catastrophes. Florida for example implemented changes to its building codes after Hurricane Andrew, and then again in 2007 after the Hurricanes of 2004 and 2005. New construction since then has made houses and buildings significantly more hurricane proof. Buildings constructed 30 years ago were likely built with codes that may have neglected the impact of strong winds from an extreme hurricane or significant rainfall that a storm can bring, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

    In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

    January 05, 2017 —
    As most litigators will tell you a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit needs to be able to prove both liability and damages to win a case. That is, you need to show both that the defendant is liable under the law and that you have suffered damages as a result. Proving one but not the other and you’ll lose the case. But there’s one other consideration that is just as important, albeit often elusive, and that is, collectability. Even if you win the case, if you can’t collect on the judgment, you might as well have lost. The following case, Wolf Metals, Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B264002 (October 25, 2016), describes some of the remedies available, procedures to follow, and difficulties confronted when obtaining a default judgment against a judgment-proof defendant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    January 08, 2019 —
    Workplace injuries are an increasingly expensive cost of doing business. While every business does their best to avoid these injuries, even the most prepared employers must deal with them on occasion. The costs associated with these injuries—increased worker’s compensation premiums, decreased productivity, hiring temporary employees, and the loss of experienced workers—can be mitigated by shrewd employers taking full advantage of available assistance programs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

    Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

    November 13, 2023 —
    The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. 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

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

    August 03, 2020 —
    In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

    Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

    February 10, 2020 —
    Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of