BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home Building Consultant Seattle Washington Medical building Building Consultant Seattle Washington mid-rise construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington institutional building Building Consultant Seattle Washington tract home Building Consultant Seattle Washington condominiums Building Consultant Seattle Washington landscaping construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington low-income housing Building Consultant Seattle Washington townhome construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington high-rise construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington multi family housing Building Consultant Seattle Washington production housing Building Consultant Seattle Washington parking structure Building Consultant Seattle Washington Subterranean parking Building Consultant Seattle Washington casino resort Building Consultant Seattle Washington office building Building Consultant Seattle Washington structural steel construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington retail construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington hospital construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Seattle Washington condominium Building Consultant Seattle Washington industrial building Building Consultant Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington building code expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington architect expert witnessSeattle Washington structural concrete expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Seattle Washington

    A license is required for plumbing, and electrical trades. Businesses must register with the Secretary of State.


    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    MBuilders Association of King & Snohomish Counties
    Local # 4955
    335 116th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98004

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
    Local # 4944
    5251 Auto Ctr Way
    Bremerton, WA 98312

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Spokane
    Local # 4966
    5813 E 4th Ave Ste 201
    Spokane, WA 99212

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of North Central
    Local # 4957
    PO Box 2065
    Wenatchee, WA 98801

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    MBuilders Association of Pierce County
    Local # 4977
    PO Box 1913 Suite 301
    Tacoma, WA 98401

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Jefferson County Home Builders Association
    Local # 4947
    PO Box 1399
    Port Hadlock, WA 98339

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Seattle Washington


    Construction of New U.S. Homes Declines on Plunge in South

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    The One New Year’s Resolution You’ll Want to Keep if You’re Involved in Public Works Projects

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

    Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter

    #11 CDJ Topic: Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al.

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    GIS and BIM Integration Will Transform Infrastructure Design and Construction

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    No Coverage For Construction Defects When Complaint Alleges Contractual Damages

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

    Court of Appeals Rules that HOA Lien is not Spurious, Despite Claim that Annexation was Invalid

    Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 2 – Procedural Due Process

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    Quick Note: Do Your Homework When it Comes to Selecting Your Arbitrator

    Florida County Suspends Impact Fees to Spur Development

    Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

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

    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

    Home Builders Wear Many Hats

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent Proof of Policy Wordings

    How Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Decision Affects Coverage of Faulty Workmanship Claims

    Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies

    Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

    Helsinki is Building a Digital Twin of the City

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Consultant Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 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 Consultant News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

    June 25, 2019 —
    New York state intends to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a certificate to General Electric Co. affirming the company completed its $1.7-billion cleanup of about 40 miles of the upper Hudson River, contaminated with PCBs from two former factories. State Attorney General Letitia James said April 11 that a December state study showed elevated PCB levels in river sediment and concentrations in fish, which were not recovering at the rate EPA anticipated. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    April 02, 2019 —
    Most companies have been involved in a situation where they want to end their relationship with another company, or with an employee, and to permanently terminate their mutual obligations (e.g., a settlement agreement resolving end-of-project litigation). In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. Price, confirmed that upholding general releases is “in harmony… with a beneficial principle of contract law: that general releases can be so constructed as to be completely enforceable.” In California, agreements with a release of claims (or s general release) include what is often referred to as a California Civil Code § 1542 waiver for the purpose of ensuring that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered. Such a waiver provision generally confirms that the Releasing Party acknowledges that it understands and waives the provisions of Section 1542, followed by the quoted text of Section 1542 (typically in all capital letters). Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and William S. Hale, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Hale may be contacted at william.hale@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Be Careful in Contracting and Business

    May 06, 2019 —
    After an hour long phone conference with a client, I have had several thoughts, only a few of which I can share here (grin). The first is that my friends and clients in the construction industry are hurting, but need to work with an attorney to assure that the pain is lessened. The second is that more, not less, precision is needed in construction contracting these days. The reason for the first thought is that the construction industry has taken a hit lately. The news is fraught with stories of the economic downturn and its impact on construction. While the money may be hard to part with, all construction professionals should get their contracts and business practices audited regularly to avoid risk and assure, as best as is possible, that they are protected. One place to get such triage is at my firm. If you don’t use me, please use someone else. On the second point, clients need attorney fees provisions, indemnity clauses and to assure that a scope of work is very specifically defined. Wiggle room is not available. In tough economic times. Owners will look for something closer to perfection when money is tight than when money is not. Contractors should also. Your contract is the first line of defense. While no contract can possibly cover every contingency and contracts are only as good as those who sign them when it comes right down to it, a good base contract is the best shield. 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

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    July 01, 2019 —
    The developer of a New York City high rise and the project's former prime contractor are trading unusually nasty safety related accusations in a dispute over the contractor's exit from the project. The contractor, New York City-based Pizzarotti, claims the settlement of the structure in soft soils creates hazards in future work that could send building components crashing to the streets. In reply, developer Fortis Property Group says the contractor’s uneven pace of work is to blame for what it sees as only slab misalignments that don’t compromise safety in any way. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
    Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    April 10, 2019 —
    A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

    Study Finds San Francisco Bay is Sinking Faster than Expected

    July 15, 2019 —
    All coastal cities in the U.S. face some potential threat from sea-level rise, but areas around San Francisco Bay may be more vulnerable than previously thought according to a recent study by Arizona State University’s Manoochehr Shirzaei and UC Berkley’s Roland Bürgmann published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alan Rider, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Eleventh Circuit Rules That Insurer Must Defend Contractor Despite “Your Work” Exclusion, Where Damage Timing Unclear

    May 13, 2019 —
    The Eleventh Circuit has reversed an insurer’s award of summary judgment after finding that uncertainty about when the alleged property damage occurred raised questions about whether the damage came within the scope of the “Your Work” exclusion. More specifically, the court found unclear whether the damage occurred before or after the contractor abandoned the job, thereby triggering an exception to the “Your Work” exclusion for damage to work that had “not yet been completed or abandoned.” The decision illustrates how timing can be a critical factor when it comes to triggering coverage for work and completed operations. In Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, a pair of trustees hired MAC Contractors (doing business as KJIMS Construction) to serve as the general contractor for a custom residence. After construction began, disputes between the trustees and KJIMS caused the contractor to abandon the job before completing the project. The trustees followed with a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that KJIMS had damaged wood floors and a metal roof, which KJIMS had promised to remediate but never did. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory

    May 13, 2019 —
    For those contractors in the government arena, read on. The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:
    1. A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
    2. the claim must be false or fraudulent;
    3. the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
    4. the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.
    See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Thielbahr may be contacted at mthielbahr@grsm.com