BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up expert witness Seattle Washington structural steel construction expert witness Seattle Washington condominiums expert witness Seattle Washington hospital construction expert witness Seattle Washington townhome construction expert witness Seattle Washington institutional building expert witness Seattle Washington industrial building expert witness Seattle Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington custom home expert witness Seattle Washington office building expert witness Seattle Washington tract home expert witness Seattle Washington housing expert witness Seattle Washington condominium expert witness Seattle Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Seattle Washington casino resort expert witness Seattle Washington Medical building expert witness Seattle Washington low-income housing expert witness Seattle Washington retail construction expert witness Seattle Washington high-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington parking structure expert witness Seattle Washington custom homes expert witness Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington expert witnesses fenestrationSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington delay claim expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting engineers
    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


    Spotting Problem Projects

    Nevada Court Adopts Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    Ambiguity in Insurance Policy will be Interpreted in Favor of Insurance Coverage

    EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

    Three Payne & Fears Attorneys Named 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

    Newmeyer Dillion Named 2023 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas By U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects

    Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

    Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

    NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

    Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

    Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

    Procedural Matters Matter!

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

    Digital Twins for a Safer Built Environment

    Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

    ACS Recognized by Construction Executive Magazine in the Top 50 Construction Law Firms of 2021

    Washington State Safety Officials Cite Contractor After Worker's Fatal Fall

    Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    Three Reasons Lean Construction Principles Are Still Valid

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Graham & Who May Trigger The Need To Protest

    How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

    Mondaq’s 2023 Construction Comparative Guide

    2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills

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

    Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Commercial Construction Lenders Rejoice: The Pennsylvania Legislature Provides a Statutory fix for the “Kessler” Decision

    Manhattan Homebuyers Pay Up as Sales Top Listing Price

    White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"

    Texas “your work” exclusion

    Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

    Florida “get to” costs do not constitute damages because of “property damage”

    Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners
    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. 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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

    October 28, 2024 —
    Review of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13 While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below. A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024 Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units. This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

    October 01, 2024 —
    New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (12/4/24) – Highest Rate of Office Conversions, Lending Caps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Affordability Challenges for Homebuyers

    December 23, 2024 —
    In our latest roundup, infrastructure-related ballot initiatives, U.S. Green Building Council’s success stories, support for sustainable building, and more!
    • 2024 is expected to see the highest rate of office conversions since CBRE began tracking them in 2016. (Nish Amarnath, SmartCities Dive)
    • The Federal Housing Finance Agency has established lending caps of $73 billion each for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing them to purchase a total of up to $146 billion in multifamily loans in 2025. (Leslie Shaver, Multifamily Dive)
    • A number of infrastructure-related initiatives with the potential to impact facilities managers were on the ballot during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. (Joe Burns, Construction Dive)
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Supreme Court Opens Door for Challenges to Older Federal Regulations

    August 05, 2024 —
    Washington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another end-of-term major decision limiting the scope of federal agency actions in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Adding to the tectonic shift in the regulatory landscape created by the Court’s June 27 and 28 rulings constraining the role of administrative law judges and overturning longstanding “Chevron deference” by courts to federal agency expertise, the decision in Corner Post establishes a newly expanded time frame for affected entities to challenge final agency action. Instead of confirming that final agency action is subject to a default six-year statute of limitations, the Court held that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the time limit for appeal begins to run when a plaintiff is injured by the agency's action, not when the action becomes final. This decision has important implications for businesses and others affected by federal regulations. The case arose when Corner Post, a truck stop and convenience store in North Dakota that opened in 2018, challenged a 2011 Federal Reserve Board regulation (Regulation II) that set maximum interchange fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post filed suit in 2021, arguing that Regulation II allowed higher fees than permitted by statute. The lower courts dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), which effectively requires APA claims to be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois
    Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com

    Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

    December 17, 2024 —
    This year, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals.”[1] In addition, the Food and Drug Administration announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer being sold for use in food packaging in the United States.[2] These are likely the first in a line of many PFAS regulations that will emerge as the harmful effects of PFAS are further understood. With this increasing regulatory focus on PFAS and their harmful effects, companies whose operations might involve these substances should be aware of what they are and potential sources of recovery for claims that arise from their omnipresence. PFAS Background According to the EPA, PFAS are widely used, long-lasting chemicals which break down slowly over time.[3] PFAS can be found in thousands of items, including, but not limited to: pots and pans, cleaning products, fabric and leather coatings, firefighting foam, carpeting, roofing materials, paints, sealants, caulks, and adhesives.[4] Additionally, manufacturing processes, waste storage, and treatment sites commonly release PFAS into the air, soil, and water.[5] Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

    In Matter of First Impression, California Appellate Court Finds a Claim for a Real Estate Professional’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Assignable

    January 28, 2025 —
    San Diego, Calif. (January 17, 2025) - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a judgment entered in favor of real estate brokers who were sued for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of residential real estate in Malibu. The Court of Appeal found the trial court erred when it rendered judgment in favor of the brokers on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims that had been assigned to her. The trial court reasoned that claims for breach of fiduciary duty against real estate brokers are highly personalized tort causes of action, which cannot be assigned. The Court of Appeal disagreed. In a case of first impression, it held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Lazar v. Bishop, issued December 19, 2024, involved a unique set of facts. The seller bought the property in 2006. His daughter, Laura Lazar, lived at the property. The seller hired a real estate broker to sell the home. The broker listed the property for $4.2 million. Thereafter, she persuaded the seller to drop the listing price to $3.15 million, the price at which it was ultimately sold. Reprinted courtesy of Briane Slome, Lewis Brisbois and Pamela Albanese, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Albanese may be contacted at Pamela.Albanese@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

    Beyond the Flow-Down Clause: Subcontract Provisions That Can Expose General Contractors to Increased Liability and Inconsistent Outcomes

    December 10, 2024 —
    Flow-down clauses in construction subcontracts—blanket clauses providing that some or all of the terms and conditions in the prime contract between the general contractor and the property owner apply equally between the subcontractor and general contractor—are an important component to managing risk for a general contractor and reducing the likelihood of disputes with either/both the owner and subcontractor. Put simply, flow-down provisions can provide continuity between the general contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor’s obligations to the general contractor. Properly drafted, flow-down clauses reduce the general contractor’s risk by ensuring that the subcontractor is legally bound to meet the owner’s objectives for the project in the same way as the general contractor. But relying on blanket flow-down clauses, alone, to protect the general contractor is like a soldier going into battle with nothing but a helmet, leaving significant other areas exposed and unprotected. In other words, a general contractor should look beyond just a singular, blanket flow down of terms to ensure its bases are properly covered. Accordingly, this article goes beyond the blanket flow-down clause and highlights several key subcontract provisions where inconsistent obligations among the subcontractor, general contractor, and owner expose the general contractor to increased liability and inconsistent outcomes. Specifically, this article will examine disputes resolution clauses, liquidating provisions, notice provisions, and termination provisions. However, this article will not provide a deep examination of these clauses, nor does it highlight every potentially relevant clause. Rather, it focuses on these select clauses to highlight important issues associated with flow-down provisions. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Parham III, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Parham may be contacted at pparham@joneswalker.com

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    October 28, 2024 —
    The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dispose of the insured's claim for collapse was denied. Life Skills, Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143658 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2024). Life Skills was a non-profit social service agency providing residential and day habilitation services to adults with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. The head office was covered by a policy issued by Harleysville with building coverage limits of $3,038,300. Damage occurred in a ceramics classroom located in the basement of the building. The floor sank between eight to twelve inches in the northeast corner. The ceramics classroom contained two large kilns weighing approximately 200 pounds. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com