BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting general contractorSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington ada design 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


    Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI

    Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked

    Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

    The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

    Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

    WSHB Secures Victory in Construction Defect Case: Contractor Wins Bench Trial

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    Hilary Soaks California With Flooding Rain and Snarls Flights

    California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

    New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill

    Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

    How the Pandemic Pushed the Construction Industry Five Years Into the Future

    Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

    California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now

    Construction Goes Green in Orange County

    Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

    More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building

    Testing Your Nail Knowledge

    Re-Thinking the One-Sided Contract: Considerations for a More Balanced Approach to Contracting

    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers

    Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

    Is It Time to Digitize Safety?

    Existing U.S. Home Sales Rise to Second-Highest Since 2007

    Construction Demand Unsteady, Gains in Some Regions

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    Partner Yvette Davis Elected to ALFA International’s Board of Directors

    Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

    Colorado House Bill 20-1290 – Restriction on the Use of Failure to Cooperate Defense in First-Party Claims

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Public Works Bid Protests – Who Is Responsible? Who Is Responsive?

    Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

    Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

    School Blown Down by Wind Still Set to Open on Schedule

    Insurers Must Defend Allegations of Faulty Workmanship

    Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today
    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

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    November 23, 2016 —
    The Eleventh Circuit found there was no duty to defend the contractor additional insured for the costs of repairing and replacing roofing installed incorrectly by the subcontractor insured. Core Constr. Servs. Southeast v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17575 (11th Cir. Sept 28, 2016). After the condominium project was completed, Hurricane Wilma damaged several roofs in the development. The association and its insurer, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, discovered that the roof had been installed incorrectly by Patnode Roofing, Inc. Empire paid for the damages and the association assigned its claims against Core Construction and its subcontractors, including Patnode, to Empire. Empire then sued Core Construction, Patnode and other subcontractors. 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

    Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

    October 28, 2015 —
    Japanese real estate investment trusts are joining apartment owners and regulators in pushing Asahi Kasei Corp. for answers on an apartment building sagging sideways on the outskirts of Tokyo, as concerns are mounting that it may not be an isolated case. REITs including Advance Residence Investment, Nippon Accommodation Fund Inc., Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. and Japan Rental Housing Investment Inc. have all asked Asahi Kasei for details on what other buildings might be flawed, according to the trusts. Asahi Kasei disclosed on Thursday the names of prefectures where the company has undertaken work in the past 10 years on more than 3,000 buildings, after the land ministry requested the data. The sites include 342 schools, 257 medical and health-care facilities, 696 housing complexes and 217 office buildings, the firm said. Asahi Kasei, the subcontractor of the project, said a unit didn’t properly install foundation piles at an apartment building in Yokohama, and the division falsified data on the work. The scandal has sent Asahi Kasei’s shares down more than 21 percent since Oct. 13, when news of the flawed building first emerged. Shares of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., the contractor, plunged 25 percent and those of Mitsui Fudosan Co., which sold units at the Yokohama project in 2006, have tumbled 5 percent since then. All three companies said that the impact of the incident on their earnings is not yet clear. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida and Katsuyo Kuwako Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

    January 21, 2019 —
    If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances. Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. 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

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    March 26, 2014 —
    A $9 million construction project in Middleton, Wisconsin has been halted due to an allegation that the construction company, Newcomb, did not comply with the advertised bid requirements and they were not the lowest bidder, according to the Wisconsin State Journal. “Dane County Judge Rhonda Lanford issued a temporary restraining order at the request of Associated General Contractors of Wisconsin asking the city to stop work on the…facility,” the Wisconsin State Journal reported. “We are pleased with the court’s decision. Fairness and transparency in public contracting is critical for the industry,” Robert Barker, Associated’s executive vice president, told the Wisconsin State Journal. “The city must abide by the rules so that all bidders are given a fair shake.” However, the city stated that Newcomb was the construction company with the lowest bid in that category. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

    January 27, 2014 —
    According to Matthew Devries’ blog, Best Practices Construction Law, problems can arise in a case with one owner and multiple contractors: “Increasingly, two or more contractors may each have a separate contract with the owner for different portions of the work on a single project.” The problems occur when contractor responsibilities or storage sites become entangled, “for example, from one contractor’s storage of materials on a site where the other has work to perform, or from one contractor’s failure to progress with work that is preliminary to the other’s work.” Devries adds that in “addition to claims against the other contractor, claims may also be made against the owner for failure to coordinate the work.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    PFAS and the Challenge of Cleaning Up “Forever”

    July 31, 2023 —
    From a stream of legal challenges, to ever-expanding regulations on things like cosmetics and drinking water, PFAS are the “forever chemicals” keeping companies and consumers on high alert. While industries scramble to remove the synthetic compounds from products, scientists are researching new techniques for scrubbing PFAS from the environment. There is money to be had for those who can find a more streamlined method of purging the substances—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has an $800 million contract on the table for the handling, destruction and replacement of PFAS-laden fire-fighting foam—leaving technology companies racing to create solutions. The three main PFAS cleaning techniques currently relied upon can be very effective but are also costly and may leave questionable byproducts in their wake. The established approaches include:
    • Granular Activated Carbon. As one of the most studied treatments for PFAS removal, granular activated carbon is often used in water treatment plants. Large beds of carbon essentially soak up the unwanted chemicals. After the Sweeney Water Plant in North Carolina, whose water source is downstream from a fluorochemical-producing Chemours plant, was found to be contaminated with PFAS, the plant invested around $46 million into upgraded activated carbon systems. Once installed, these systems cost roughly $2.9 million to operate yearly, as the carbon needs to be replaced each time it reaches capacity. Though pricey, the plant says that the process now clears close to 100% of PFAS.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of PFAS Team, Pillsbury

    Court Addresses Damages Under Homeowners Insurance Policy

    January 21, 2019 —
    During a storm, a tree landed on a homeowners house causing damage to the home’s foundation. Homeowners filed a claim on their homeowners insurance policy to recover the resulting damages. After homeowners and insurance company could not come to an agreement on value of the loss, homeowners filed a lawsuit. Homeowners presented the testimony of a contractor as an expert witness regarding the damage and the resulting loss of value. Contractor testified that the home value was reduced in half as a direct result of the damage to the home’s foundation. Insurance company sought to exclude the contractor’s testimony, arguing he was not qualified as an expert and did not apply appropriate methodology to reach his opinions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    August 26, 2015 —
    In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that notwithstanding the presence of a consent-to-assignment clause in a liability policy, Insurance Code section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor the insured’s assignment of coverage after a loss has taken place during the policy period. In Henkel, the Supreme Court limited the ability of corporate successors to obtain coverage under predecessors’ policies on a contract theory. The Henkel Court held that where a successor corporation contractually assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation, the insurance benefits would not automatically follow. The Henkel Court ruled that if the predecessor company’s policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause, any assignment of insurance policy benefits to a successor corporation required the insurer’s consent. The Court said that policy benefits are not transferable choses in action unless at the time of corporate transfer they could be reduced to a monetary sum certain. The Court reasoned that historic product or environmental liabilities might not even be known to the predecessor at that time, much less reduced to a sum certain, so coverage for such risks could not be considered a transferable chose in action. Thus, where the liability was inchoate at the time of the corporate transaction, the Henkel Court said that coverage would not necessarily follow because the insurer’s duties had not yet attached. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of