BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Seattle Washington multi family housing expert witness Seattle Washington Medical building expert witness Seattle Washington industrial building expert witness Seattle Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Seattle Washington landscaping construction expert witness Seattle Washington retail construction expert witness Seattle Washington hospital construction expert witness Seattle Washington structural steel construction expert witness Seattle Washington high-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington parking structure expert witness Seattle Washington townhome construction expert witness Seattle Washington office building expert witness Seattle Washington tract home expert witness Seattle Washington condominium expert witness Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up expert witness Seattle Washington custom homes expert witness Seattle Washington housing expert witness Seattle Washington custom home expert witness Seattle Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington low-income housing expert witness Seattle Washington casino resort expert witness Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington concrete expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer 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.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Seattle Washington

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


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

    Seattle Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

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

    Seattle Washington Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Seattle Washington


    Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

    CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

    Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006

    Construction Down in Twin Cities Area

    Suspend the Work, but Don’t Get Fired

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Is Arbitration Always the Answer?

    Single-Family Home Starts Seen Catching Up to Surging U.S. Sales

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

    The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

    Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

    Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    Need to Cover Yourself for “Crisis” Changes on a Job Site? Try These Tips (guest post)

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

    How To Fix Oroville Dam

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

    As Evidence Grows, Regions Prepare for Sea Level Rise

    Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State

    The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Expert Witness Engineer Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Appellate Court reverses district court’s finding of alter ego in Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation v. Christopher Hinds (2019WL2865935)

    August 13, 2019 —
    Division V of the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, corporate veil-piercing in the context of a single-member, single-purpose LLC that is managed under a contract by another company. On July 3, 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Honorable Ross B. Buchannan, Denver District Court Judge (17CA2102), who held that Plaintiff/Appellee Christopher Hinds satisfied the elements required to pierce the corporate veil of Sedgwick Properties Development Corporation (“Sedgwick”). Background Defendant 1950 Logan, LLC (“1950 Logan”) was the developer of a building located at 1950 Logan Street, in Denver, called The Tower on the Park (“Project”), which contained 141 individually owned condominium units. The Project was completed in 2006. 1950 Logan was a single-purpose entity created for the construction of the Project, which is a common practice in the construction industry. After the units were sold in 2006, the LLC wrapped up operations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate

    April 22, 2019 —
    A partisan squabble over funds to help Puerto Rico continue its long recovery and rebuilding from two hurricanes in 2017 has tied up a wide-ranging spending package on Capitol Hill. At stake in the fight are hundreds of millions of dollars for reconstruction and related work around the U.S. Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review

    September 23, 2019 —
    Attorneys for families of the six people who were killed and for survivors of 2018’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse say Louis Berger Group is the last defendant that has not yet agreed to settle lawsuits in state court in Miami. The legal actions target companies that designed and built the bridge. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    August 20, 2019 —
    Lump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract. This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions. In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract. 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

    Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

    June 10, 2019 —
    The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's determination that there was no coverage based upon the policy's "your work" exclusion. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Fla, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10689 (11th Cir. April 11, 2019). Mac Contractors contracted with the homeowners to custom build their home. After construction began, Mac left the site before completing the project and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The homeowners sued, alleged damage to wood floors and the metal roof. Southern-Owners originally agreed to defend under the CGL policy, but later withdrew the defense and filed this action for declaratory relief. The parties cross-filed motions for summary judgment. Southern-Owners argued that the "your work" exclusion applied to bar coverage. The "your work" exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' to 'your work' arising out of it or any part of it and included in the 'products' completed operations hazard.'" The "products' completed operations hazard" included all "'property damage' occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of . . . 'your work' except . . . (1) products that are still in your physical possession; or (2) work that has not yet been completed or abandoned." 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

    Environmental Roundup – May 2019

    July 09, 2019 —
    Federal Courts of Appeal Dam Claims Collapse On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided the case of Navelski, et al. v. International Paper Company. After a major storm, a dam constructed by International Paper to serve the operations of its local paper mill, was breached, releasing millions of gallons of water into a nearby creek resulting in the flooding of many homes located downstream from the creek. IP was sued by the homeowners in a class action, alleging negligence and strict liability for conducting an abnormally dangerous activity. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim, and the jury found IP was not negligent in the operation of the dam. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict, agreeing that the verdict was supported by the evidence heard by the jury. The appeals court also agreed that the strict liability claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law because the operation of this dam was not an abnormally dangerous activity under Florida law. The plaintiffs had also argued that the jury should not have been advised that the home county, Escambia County, has applied for a FEMA grant which apparently made the case that some of the downstream homes were naturally prone to flooding. A redacted version of the application was allowed to be shown to the jury, but the appeals court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the court ruling was prejudicial. 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

    They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

    June 10, 2019 —
    The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
    Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

    Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

    September 04, 2019 —
    Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law. Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C). To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com