BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington hospital construction expert witness Seattle Washington Medical building expert witness Seattle Washington industrial building expert witness Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up expert witness Seattle Washington production housing expert witness Seattle Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington parking structure expert witness Seattle Washington condominiums expert witness Seattle Washington low-income housing expert witness Seattle Washington custom homes expert witness Seattle Washington casino resort expert witness Seattle Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Seattle Washington tract home expert witness Seattle Washington office building expert witness Seattle Washington condominium expert witness Seattle Washington institutional building expert witness Seattle Washington landscaping construction expert witness Seattle Washington multi family housing expert witness Seattle Washington housing expert witness Seattle Washington retail construction expert witness Seattle Washington townhome construction expert witness Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington construction forensic expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness 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.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Seattle Washington

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


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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Seattle Washington


    Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

    OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

    One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

    “But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

    Will On-Site Robotics Become Feasible in Construction?

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    Cuba: Construction Boom Potential for U.S. Construction Companies and Equipment Manufacturers?

    California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    Engineers Propose 'River' Alternative to Border Wall

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    An Upward Trend in Commercial Construction?

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme

    School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

    Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    The Miller Act Explained

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    $1.9 Trillion Stimulus: Five Things Employers Need to Know

    Mexico Settles With Contractors for Canceled Airport Terminal

    Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

    Anchorage Building Codes Credited for Limited Damage After Quakes

    Construction Resumes after Defects

    New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Construction Expert Witness 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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict

    March 01, 2021 —
    When a liability insurer defends an insured from a third-party claim, they oftentimes do so under a reservation of rights. A reservation of rights letter is issued to the insured that identifies certain coverage exclusions or reservations relative to the insurance policy that may impact the insurer’s duty to indemnify the insured for damages. In other words, just because the insurer is defending its insured does not mean it will be indemnifying its insured for damages asserted in the third-party claim.
    Under Florida law, the party claiming insurance coverage has the initial burden to show that a settlement or judgment represents damages that fall within the coverage provisions of the insurance policy. An insured’s inability to allocate the amount of a judgment between covered and uncovered damages is therefore generally fatal to its indemnification claim. However, the burden of apportioning or allocating between covered and uncovered damages in a general jury verdict may be shifted to the insurer if the insurer did not adequately make known to the insured the availability and advisability of a special verdict. QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., 806 Fed.Appx. 692, *695 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted).
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve

    October 26, 2020 —
    Would you believe me if I told you that this year could have been worse for builders? Had COVID-19 not hit, the Colorado Legislature may have passed bills that would have had a severely negative impact on the home building industry. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature temporarily adjourned in mid-March, 67 days into the 120-day legislative session. After a two-month recess, the Legislature returned for approximately one month to pass critical bills including the state budget, the school finance act and what to do with the money from the federal CARES Act. Of the bills on the calendar when the Legislature temporarily adjourned, legislators focused on those that were “fast, free, and friendly,” and let the others fall by the wayside. Bills that died included SB 20-138, which would have extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims from six plus two years to 10 plus two years. The bill also contained a number of accrual and tolling provisions, which would have made it harder for builders to convince tribunals that claims were untimely. This bill died on the Senate floor, for lack of support. We will see whether plaintiffs’ attorneys will revive this effort next year. SB 20-093, while not an outright ban on arbitration or a legislative overturning of the Vallagio decision, would have made it harder to administer and more difficult to get cases into arbitration. The bill died under the “fast, free, and friendly” test, i.e., it faced too much opposition. I expect to see this bill again next year, in some form. 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

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Insurers’ Bid to Overturn a $400M Decision

    January 25, 2021 —
    New Jersey’s highest court heard arguments Monday in the appeal of a ruling that the New Jersey Transit Corp.’s (“NJ Transit”) insurers are required to insure $400 million of water damage loss caused by Hurricane Sandy. The matter stems from an insurance claim NJ Transit made after the super storm rocked the East Coast in 2012. NJ Transit claimed over $400 million in losses as a result of damage to its tracks, bridges, tunnels and power stations. In response, its tower of property insurers took the position that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to limit NJ Transit’s recovery under its insurance tower, not the policy’s $400 million overall limits.NJ Transit filed a coverage action in state court. The trial court granted summary judgment to NJ Transit, holding that NJ Transit was entitled to full coverage of $400 million under the tower’s named windstorm coverage. The insurers appealed, again arguing that the flood sublimit applied to the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

    December 29, 2020 —
    Here is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided. In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction. The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

    December 14, 2020 —
    Starting in 2009, the Colorado Legislature began adding requirements that builders offer certain options to accommodate high-efficiency devices. These requirements started with solar prewire options in 2009, then water-smart home options in 2010. In 2020, the Legislature added requirements for electric vehicle charging and heating systems. These sections apply to unoccupied homes serving as sales inventory or a model home or manufactured homes, as defined by Colorado law. While the Legislature has only required builders to include options to accommodate these devices, it may be just a matter of time until builders must install the prescribed devices themselves. In 2009, the Legislature passed C.R.S. 38-35.7-106, which was amended this year by HB 20-1155. As it now reads, Colorado law requires every builder of single-family detached residences to offer to have the home’s electrical or plumbing system, or both, include:
    1. A residential photovoltaic solar generation system or a residential thermal system, or both;
    2. Upgrades of wiring or plumbing, or both, planned by the builder to accommodate future installation of such systems; and
    3. A chase or conduit, or both, constructed to allow ease of future installation of the necessary wiring or plumbing for such systems.
    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

    Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2021

    November 30, 2020 —
    Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2021 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with five metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles
    • Tier 1
      • Insurance Law
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
      • Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs
    • Tier 2
      • Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says

    January 25, 2021 —
    A Richmond, Va., federal appeals court has restored an environmental consultant's legal fight for $2.7 million in federal funds to cover work at a Superfund cleanup site it managed, rejecting a lower court’s dismissal of its claim over a technicality. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

    October 19, 2020 —
    Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com