BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expert witness consultantSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle Washington construction safety expertSeattle Washington architecture expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington construction scheduling 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


    Wonder How 2021 May Differ From 2020? Federal Data Privacy May Be Enacted - Be Prepared

    Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

    Megaproject Savings Opportunities

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    Liquidated Damages Clause Not Enforced

    Loss Caused by Theft, Continuous Water Discharge Not Covered

    Todd Seelman Recognized as Fellow of Wisconsin Law Foundation

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Following Pennsylvania Trend, Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Construction Defect

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat

    Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

    How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls

    New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere

    THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/24/24) – Long-Term Housing Issues in Hawaii, Underperforming REITs, and Growth in a Subset of the Hotel Sector

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    ASCE Statement on Passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Future Army Corps Rulings on Streams and Wetlands: Changes and Delays Ahead

    Insurance Telematics and Usage Based Insurance Products

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Doing Construction Lead Programs the Right Way

    AAA Revises its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

    Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!

    Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Wrap Music to an Insurer’s Ears?”

    The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

    Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

    Senate’s Fannie Mae Wind-Down Plan Faces High Hurdles

    Three Kahana Feld Attorneys Selected to 2024 NY Metro Super Lawyers Lists

    Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis
    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

    What is a Civil Dispute?

    August 07, 2018 —
    Broadly speaking, all lawsuits can be put into one of two categories: criminal or civil. Criminal cases are brought by the government against a private person and/or organization for committing an act that is considered harmful to society as a whole; whereas civil cases involve private disputes between individuals and/or organizations. Civil litigation begins when one person or organization claims that another person or organization has failed to carry out a legal duty owed to the claimant. Legal duties are those prescribed either by contract between the parties, or by the law. In order for a claimant to commence legal action against another party, the claimant must file a summons and complaint with the court and serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the party against whom the lawsuit is being brought. The person who brings the lawsuit is called the “Plaintiff” and the person against whom the lawsuit is brought is called the “Defendant.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

    November 04, 2019 —
    In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

    February 01, 2021 —
    SUMMARY Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day. In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19. ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19. Reprinted courtesy of Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Preservation Maze

    June 12, 2023 —
    To appropriately preserve an issue for appeal is frankly confusing to many attorneys due to differing rules depending on the issue or procedural posture (presumably why appellate attorneys are more commonly used during trial). On May 25th, the US Supreme Court handed down Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. __ (2023) clarifying preservation requirements from denied summary judgment orders. When a federal court denies summary judgment on sufficiency of evidence grounds, a party must raise the argument again post-trial to preserve it for appeal as per the Court’s prior ruling in Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011). When a court denies summary judgment on a purely legal issue, the Court unanimously held that the issue is preserved in an appeal from a final judgment without having to raise it again post-trial. The Supreme Court distinguished this from their prior rule in Ortiz by explaining that sufficiency or factual issues which were previously denied at summary judgment must be evaluated based on the totality of the evidence adduced at trial. A purely legal issue decided on summary judgment is not changed by factual evidence at trial. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana & Feld LLP
    Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com

    Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

    April 19, 2021 —
    As we start another trip around the sun, hopefully you are in the process of updating your form contracts, including purchase and sale agreements and express written warranties. Because the law and litigation landscape continually changes, it is a good practice to periodically update the forms you use in order to give yourself a fighting chance if and when the plaintiffs' attorneys come knocking on your door. As you engage in this process, I hope that you will take a critical look at whether your contracts include a prevailing party attorneys' fees clause and, if so, whether you should leave it in there. In Colorado, parties are entitled to recover attorneys' fees only if provided for by statute or by contract. Historically, plaintiffs' attorneys relied on two statutes, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, to recover attorneys’ fees in construction defect cases. In 2003, the Colorado legislature capped treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act at $250,000, effectively restricting plaintiffs' attorneys from relying on the CCPA to recoup their attorneys' fees, especially in large cases. In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Goodyear v. Holmes, stating that plaintiffs can only claim prejudgment interest under Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, in cases where they have already spent money on repairs, not when they are suing for an estimate of what repairs will cost in the future. Without either the CCPA or the prejudgment interest statute to recover attorneys' fees, plaintiffs' attorneys most often now rely on the prevailing party attorney fee clause in contracts between the owner and builder, or in the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions in situations where a claim is prosecuted by an HOA. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Environmental Justice Legislation Update

    May 17, 2021 —
    Environmental Justice, as an urgent priority of the Federal Government, dates back to 1994, and President Clinton’s issuance of Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environment effects of its many programs, policies and procedures on minority populations and low-income populations. The primary legal basis for this order was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular, Sections 601 and 602, which prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial aid and assistance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has reviewed the scope and importance of Title VI. In Alexander v. Sandoval, decided in 2001, the Court concluded that while private parties could sue to enforce Section 601 or its implementing regulations, as written, Section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination. Noting that disproportionate impact is not the sole touchstone of invidious racial discrimination. Moreover, the Court also ruled in Sandoval that private parties cannot sue to enforce regulations implementing Section 602. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of these shortcomings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established an administrative system to process environmental justice complaints at 40 CFR Part 7. Without strengthening the statutory base of environmental justice, the program may continue to be the subject of countless symposiums and seminars. However, this may change soon. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

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

    August 12, 2013 —
    The Colorado Court of Appeals has decided a case which answers a question long in need of an answer: do banks/lenders have standing to assert construction defect claims when they receive title to a newly-constructed home following a foreclosure sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure? The decision was released on August 1, 2013, in the case of Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC v. Hepworth-Pawlack Geotechnical, Inc., Steve Pawlak, Daniel Hadin, and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd. (Colorado Court of Appeals No. 13CA0519). The background facts of the case are typical of a Colorado residential construction defect case generally. A developer contracted for an analytical soil engineering report from a geotechnical engineering firm (H-P) which made a foundation recommendation. The developer’s general contractor then retained an engineering firm (SPKE) to provide engineering services, including a foundation design. The general contractor built the foundation in accordance with the H-P and SPKE criteria and plans. The house was not sold by the developer and went into default on the construction loan. These events resulted in a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure to a bank-controlled entity which purchased the house for re-sale. Shortly after receiving the developer’s deed, the bank-related entity discovered defects in the foundation that resulted in a construction defect suit against the two design firms and related individuals. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
    W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

    Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine

    December 08, 2016 —
    The Florida Supreme Court in Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly S582a (Fla. 2016) gave really good news to claimants seeking recovery under a first-party all-risk property insurance policy. The Court held that the concurrent cause doctrine and not the efficient proximate cause doctrine was the proper theory of recovery to apply when multiple perils—an excluded peril and a covered peril-combined to create a property loss. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com