BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington industrial building expert witness Seattle Washington institutional building expert witness Seattle Washington production housing expert witness Seattle Washington multi family housing expert witness Seattle Washington Medical building expert witness Seattle Washington townhome construction expert witness Seattle Washington structural steel construction expert witness Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up expert witness Seattle Washington retail construction expert witness Seattle Washington condominium expert witness Seattle Washington custom home expert witness Seattle Washington casino resort expert witness Seattle Washington housing expert witness Seattle Washington parking structure expert witness Seattle Washington condominiums expert witness Seattle Washington landscaping construction expert witness Seattle Washington low-income housing expert witness Seattle Washington tract home expert witness Seattle Washington Subterranean parking expert witness Seattle Washington office building expert witness Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildingsSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington building code 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


    The New Industrial Revolution: Rebuilding America and the World

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

    Self-Storage Magnates Cash In on the Surge in Real Estate

    Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    “I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

    Bank Window Lawsuit Settles Quietly

    Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

    Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

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

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

    New OSHA Regulations on Confined Spaces in Construction

    A Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    What You Need to Know About Additional Insured Endorsements

    Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky

    California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

    UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named a Best Law Firm in 2019 in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers

    Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Texas contractual liability exclusion

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Vito John Marzano Secure Dismissal of Indemnification and Breach of Contract Claims Asserted against Subcontractor

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

    Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Newmeyer & Dillion Welcomes Three Associates to Newport Beach Office

    Trump, Infrastructure and the Construction Industry

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Expert Witness Engineer Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Seattle's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it) [UPDATE]

    October 14, 2019 —
    Virginia mechanic’s liens are a powerful and tricky beast that in most cases require absolute precision in their preparation. However, an interesting opinion recently came out of the Virginia Supreme Court that may provide a bit of a “safe harbor” from the total form over function nature of a mechanic’s lien. In Desai, Executrix v. A.R. Design Group Inc., the Court considered a lien memorandum that had what could be described as technical flaws in the preparation of the mechanic’s lien by A. R. Design Group. The basic facts are that A. R. Design Group used the form of lien found in Va. Code Sec. 43-5 (also found as Form CC-1512 at the Virginia Judiciary website) when it recorded two lien memoranda for two pieces of property owned by a trust. Relating to one of the two properties, the memorandum failed to identify the “Owner” as the trustee of the trust. On the memoranda relating to both properties the affidavit verifying the amounts claimed did not identify the signatory as agent for A. R. Design Group, instead listing the agent as the claimant and further failed to state a date from which interest is claimed or a date on which the debt was due. Needless to say, the owner argued that each of these technical defects invalidated the memoranda and therefore they should have been released. Somewhat surprisingly the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court disagreed and held the liens to be valid. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the lower court. The held that the failure to add the word “Trustee” after Ulka Desai’s name did not invalidate the lien because the trustee had all of the rights of ownership and furthermore that naming Desai in the memorandum served the purpose of putting third parties on notice of the lien. 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

    Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

    August 26, 2019 —
    In the California building and construction industry, service of a “Preliminary Notice” is a prerequisite for Subcontractor and Supplier claims for payment through the Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice and Payment Bond Claim process. Without proper drafting and service of a Preliminary Notice, these extremely valuable claims cannot be protected. Unfortunately, despite the vital importance of the Preliminary Notice, Subcontractors and Suppliers often make common self-defeating mistakes that make their Preliminary Notice efforts completely ineffective, resulting in loss of their claims rights. The purpose of this article is to list some of these common mistakes in the hope that the reader will avoid such mistakes, preserve the integrity of the Preliminary Notice, and protect the claims rights it makes available: Not Sending out the Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days After Supplying Labor or Materials: The protection of a Preliminary Notice begins 20 days before it sent out. This means that if a Subcontractor or Supplier claimant delivered $100,000 in materials on February 1, that same claimant must serve the Preliminary Notice on or before February 21 (the sooner the better), or the claimant will not be able to pursue an enforceable Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond claim for that $100,000. There are very few exceptions. Best practice: A Subcontractor or Supplier must send out the Preliminary Notice as soon as an agreement to provide work or materials to a California construction project is in place (See California Civil Code 8204). 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

    Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships

    September 09, 2019 —
    In its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention. The first possible amendment will modify the Board’s administrative election blocking charge practice by establishing a regulation-based vote and impound procedure to be used when a party, typically a union facing possible decertification, files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge and, based thereon, seeks to block the holding of an election. The second possible amendment will modify the Board’s current recognition bar case law by codifying prior Board case doctrine and creating a regulation-based requirement of notice of voluntary recognition to affected employees and a 45-day open period within which affected employees may call for an election before that voluntary recognition will be allowed to operate as a bar to employees raising later questions concerning the union’s representative status (QCR). Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Keahn Morris, John Bolesta and James Hays Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Hays may be contacted at jhays@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Coverage Action Arising out of a Claim for Personal Injury

    December 22, 2019 —
    On August 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action involving a claim for coverage for a personal injury action involving injuries suffered on a construction site. The plaintiff in the underlying action was performing excavation in a basement of a building in Manhattan so the owner could install a pool. During the course of the excavation plaintiff fell 13 feet from a plank, into the excavated pit, suffering serious injuries. Traub Lieberman’s client issued a CGL policy to the building owner and the insured sought coverage for the suit under that policy. The insurer denied coverage based on an endorsement to the policy that stated the insured could only contract directly with a specified general contractor. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor and the insurer believed the insured had contracted directly with that unapproved subcontractor. The insured denied it had done, contending the subcontractor had been hired by the general contractor identified in the endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    September 23, 2019 —
    Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

    Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

    December 09, 2019 —
    Any general contractor understands the range of factors that go into building and sustaining a successful jobsite: hiring the right team, maintaining cutting-edge equipment, ensuring constant communication with clients and effectively leveraging the newest building technologies, just to name a few. But any good general contractor understands that there is one factor that should always be considered as top priority: jobsite safety. The health and wellbeing of a project’s team is paramount for obvious reasons, and it isn’t a lighthearted matter. Injuries and fatalities have too often been a piece of our industry’s story. In 2017 alone, there were 971 reported deaths on construction sites, which accounted for 20% of total worker fatalities, according to a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Of these 971 fatalities, 582 were the result of construction’s “fatal four”—falls, workers being struck by objects, electrocutions and workers being caught between equipment. For members of the industry, these are difficult numbers to read and to process; yet, it is extremely important to consider the injuries and lives lost when we take into consideration the seriousness of jobsite safety. Often, general contractors’ and superintendents’ greatest challenge isn’t being convinced of the necessity of jobsite safety practices in protecting employees or the value of safety in creating a productive work environment. Instead, the focus should be providing industry leaders tips on exactly how to improve safety measures on their own jobsites. Understanding that safety is everyone’s responsibility is paramount. Reprinted courtesy of Ray Reese, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Reese may be contacted at rreese@rives.com

    OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

    September 09, 2019 —
    Multi-employer worksites are a frequent occurrence in the construction industry as employees from various companies often occupy the same site while a project is being completed. While the need for employees from different companies may be necessary to perform the various tasks required by a project, the presence of multiple employers, and their employees, on the same worksite can result in an increased risk of safety hazards. Companies performing construction work should be, and generally are, aware of OSHA’s ability to issue citations for workplace safety violations. What many companies may not know, however, is that OSHA’s ability to cite employers is not limited to workplace conditions that are unsafe only to that employer’s direct employees. Rather, OSHA also has the ability to cite an employer, and often does issue such citations, for conditions that could result in injury or death to another company’s employees. The policy which provides OSHA with this citation ability is CPL 02-00-124 and is called the Multi-Employer Citation Policy (the “Policy”). Under the language of the Policy, OSHA has the ability to cite multiple employers for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the same hazardous workplace condition. Critically, responsibilities under the Policy do not depend on the employer’s job title but are determined by the employer’s role. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip C. Bauknight, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Bauknight may be contacted at pbauknight@fisherphillips.com

    Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

    July 30, 2019 —
    Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com