BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Seattle Washington hospital construction expert witness Seattle Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Seattle Washington structural steel construction expert witness Seattle Washington townhome construction expert witness Seattle Washington high-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington office building expert witness Seattle Washington parking structure expert witness Seattle Washington casino resort expert witness Seattle Washington Medical building expert witness Seattle Washington production housing expert witness Seattle Washington low-income housing expert witness Seattle Washington landscaping construction expert witness Seattle Washington condominiums expert witness Seattle Washington tract home expert witness Seattle Washington multi family housing expert witness Seattle Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington institutional building expert witness Seattle Washington industrial building expert witness Seattle Washington custom home expert witness Seattle Washington retail construction expert witness Seattle Washington condominium expert witness Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington construction claims expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witness consultantSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle Washington eifs expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington multi family design 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


    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend

    Should a Subcontractor provide bonds to a GC who is not himself bonded? (Bonding Agent Perspective)

    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

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

    Is Arbitration Always the Answer?

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

    California MCLE Seminar at BHA Sacramento July 11th

    Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements

    Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform

    Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    What is a Subordination Agreement?

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

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming

    Colorado statutory “property damage” caused by an “occurrence”

    OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

    Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

    Whitney Stefko Named to ENR’s Top Young Professionals, formerly ENR’s Top 20 Under 40, in California

    Newmeyer & Dillion Ranked Fourth Among Medium Sized Companies in 2016 OCBJ Best Places to Work List

    Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories

    U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors

    Did the Court of Appeals Just Raise the Bar for California Contractors to Self-Report Construction-Related Judgments?
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Expert Witness Engineer 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. 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Sixth Circuit Holds that Some Official Actions Taken in the “Flint Water Crisis” Could Be Constitutional Due Process Violations

    March 27, 2019 —
    In what the Court of Appeals describes as “the infamous government-created environmental disaster known at the Flint Water Crisis,” a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that some of the government personnel responsible for this disaster may be liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for monetary damages based on the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The case is Guertin, et al., v. State of Michigan, et al., decided on January 4, 2019. On April 25, 2014, the City of Flint, MI, facing a financial crisis, agreed to switch its drinking water supply from the water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to untreated water available from the Flint River that would be treated in the waterworks owned and operated by the City. However, the City waterworks could not provide the needed treatment, which resulted in the corrosive Flint River water leaching lead out of the old Flint water pipes. Soon thereafter, a public health and environmental crisis enveloped Flint. Many lawsuits have been filed against many defendants, and many civil and criminal investigations have been opened. 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

    Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

    August 13, 2019 —
    The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California Private Works project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. The process starts with the recording of a mechanics lien in the office of the County Recorder where the property in question is located. As noted below, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that, the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). A further general description of the rules is as follows: Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    April 22, 2019 —
    In the era of the Lean In movement and the Women’s March, women are finding their voices and using them. In politics, in the classroom and even on the playing field, women’s participation and leadership are breaking records. However, this is not the case in the board room—especialy in the C-suite. The Russell 3000 Index, a market index that benchmarks the U.S. Stock Market, found that only 9 percent of top executive positions were filled by women. The construction industry reflects this low participation of female executives. Women in construction only number 9 percent across the board of the industry. Seven percent of all construction executives are women and only 3 percent of the Fortune 500 construction companies have a female construction manager. Most are in sales and office roles (about 45 percent). Russell 3000 also found that women who are in the C-suite usually fill more HR- or administrative-related positions with very few in COO or CEO positions. Women in leadership need to have real decision making power to progress further. On the upside, women in construction tend to have less of a pay gap than other industries—about 5 percent compared to 20 percent. Though she be but little, She is Fierce Despite their small numbers, women executives in construction are paving the way for others to access leadership. In 1984, 11 women created Women Construction Owners and Executives, an organization for support and professional development. Their purpose is to promote women into leadership, assist women in executive positions and encourage more women to join the industry. The National Association of Women in Construction and Women in Construction Operations are also resources and networks with thousands of members. Reprinted courtesy of Annalisa Enrile & Oliver Ritchie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    PSA: Performing Construction Work in Virginia Requires a Contractor’s License

    March 04, 2019 —
    As a Virginia construction attorney, I often get calls for assistance in dealing with payment disputes. Frequently, these calls come from out of state contractors and subcontractors that have performed work in Virginia. One of the first questions that I ask is whether these contractors and subcontractors hold a contractor license from the Commonwealth of Virginia. While most do, some do not, likely because they are unaware of the requirement in Virginia that all contractors be licensed when performing work in the Commonwealth. While I haven’t done an exhaustive survey of the statutes and regulations of every state of the union on this point, the confused silence leads me to believe that such is not a requirement in every state. The most common reaction after “I had no idea I needed one” is that the general contractor holds a license so they did not think they needed to hold one. As I stated above, this is incorrect. 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

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    April 17, 2019 —
    In Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., et al. (No. D072724, filed 2/26/19), the Fourth Appellate District reversed a trial court’s granting of summary judgment and finding that expert testimony is not required in a professional negligence action where the claimed acts or omissions are within the understanding of a lay person. Daniel and Patricia Ryan hired Defendants David Schroedl, David Schroedl & Associates, and Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty to list, market, and sell their property. During an open house, the Ryans’ neighbor informed Defendant David Schroedl that he planned significant construction on his own property which would impact the Ryans’ property including, but not limited to, building a large addition that would obstruct the property’s westerly ocean view. Schroedl never disclosed this information to the Ryans or to the subsequent purchasers of the Ryans’ property. The day after escrow closed, the new owners’ interior decorator spoke with that neighbor who again explained his extensive remodeling plans. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    March 18, 2019 —
    The United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question. In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina. The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

    April 22, 2019 —
    Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Tenth Circuit found that exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 were ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case. MTI, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). Western Farmers Electrical Cooperative (WFEC) owned cooling towers which were serviced by MTI, Inc. Wausau provided a CGL policy to MTI. In 2011, MTI found that anchor bolts in Cooling Tower 1 were corroded. WFEC hired MTI to make repairs by installing new anchor castings with anchor bolts and anchor adhesive. On May 23, 2011, MTI employees removed all of the corroded anchor bolts in Tower 1. Because the adhesive applicator had not yet arrived, MTI did not immediately install new anchor bolts. On the night of May 24, strong winds struck the tower, causing it to lean and several structural components broke. Due to the extent of the structural damage, removal and replacement of the tower was determined to be the only viable option. 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

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    July 22, 2019 —
    In a favorable case for insureds, the Fifth District Court of Appeal maintained that “when an insurer breaches an insurance contract, the insured is entitled to recover more than the pecuniary loss involved in the balance of the payments due under the policy in consequential damages, provided the damages were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the [insurance] contract.” Manor House, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1403b (Fla. 5thDCA 2019) (internal citations and quotation omitted). Thus, consequential damages can be recovered against an insurer in a breach of contract action (e.g., breach of the insurance policy) if the damages can be proven and were in contemplation of the parties at the inception of the insurance contract. In Manor House, the trial court entered summary judgment against the insured holding the insured could not seek lost rental income in its breach of contract action against Citizens Property Insurance because the property insurance policy did not provide coverage for lost rent. However, the Fifth District reversed this ruling because the trial court denied the insured the opportunity to prove whether the parties contemplated that the insured, an apartment complex owner, would suffer lost rental income (consequential damages) if the insurer breached its contractual duties. 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