• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington ada design expert witnessSeattle Washington consulting engineersSeattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness commercial buildings
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert 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.


    Building Expert Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Seattle Washington

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


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

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10

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

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

    Seattle Washington Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Seattle Washington


    ASCE Statement on Devastating Impacts of Hurricane Helene

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Partners Larry Bracken and Mike Levine Receive Band 1 Honors from Chambers USA in Georgia

    Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage

    Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers

    New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid

    Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    Circuit Court Lacks Appellate Jurisdiction Over Order Compelling Appraisal

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    Extreme Rainfall Is Becoming More Frequent and Deadly

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    UK Construction Defect Suit Lost over One Word

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    Stay-At-Home Orders and Work Restrictions with 50 State Matrix

    Project Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Recording Deadline

    Nailing Social Media: The Key to Generating Leads for Construction Companies

    Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.

    Housing Affordability Down

    Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance

    Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and Contractor

    Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, et al.

    Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (10/06/21)

    Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

    Carroll Brock of Larchmont Homes Dies at Age 88

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?

    A Few Green Building Notes

    Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    December 30, 2013 —
    Following Kentucky law, the Sixth Circuit determined there was no coverage for a construction defect claim. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kay & Kay Contracting, LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23587 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2013). Walmart hired a contractor to build a new store. The contractor hired Kay and Kay to perform site preparation work and construct the building pad for the new store. After Kay and Kay completed the building pad and the store was erected, cracks were noticed in the building's walls. Walmart contended there was settling in the some of the fill areas. Kay and Kay denied liability, but demanded coverage under its CGL policy with Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    December 02, 2019 —
    In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

    Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

    February 18, 2020 —
    Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:
    In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.
    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

    New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds $400 Million Award for Superstorm Sandy Damages

    February 22, 2021 —
    In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London,1 New Jersey’s highest court upheld an appellate decision2 finding that New Jersey Transit Corporation (“NJT”) was entitled to full coverage under its property insurance policy for damages caused by Superstorm Sandy. In July 2012, NJT secured a multi-layered “all risks” property insurance program from eleven insurers for the policy period of July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013. The policies covered all perils and damage to NJT’s property unless specifically excluded. The primary layer, issued by Lexington Insurance Company, provided the first $50 million of coverage. The second layer provided coverage up to $100 million, the third layer provided an additional $175 million, and the fourth layer provided coverage of $125 million, for a total of $400 million in coverage. The excess layer insurers included Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Torus Specialty Insurance Company, and several other carriers. All participating insurers’ policies included a standard policy form and separate endorsements, some of which were included in all policies and some of which were unique to specific insurers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Kane may be contacted at kkane@sdvlaw.com

    Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

    April 22, 2024 —
    In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

    The Comcast Project is Not Likely to Be Shut Down Too Long

    July 13, 2017 —
    Jan Von Bergen at the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that work on Comcast’s new tower came to a halt this morning when striking members of Local 542 picketed the Comcast tower project and other union trades refused to cross the picket line. However, this show of solidarity (during the afternoon on the Friday before the Fourth of July) is unlikely to last past the long weekend. Why? Because any conduct by Local 542 aimed at encouraging a work stoppage by other union members is illegal and the companies that employ the sympathetic union members are in breach of contract if they do not work on Tuesday. Any actions by Local 542 to encourage members of a different trade unions to honor their picket line is a secondary boycott. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits secondary boycotts. Specifically, the NLRA prohibits a union for inducing employees of an employer not subject to a labor dispute to refuse to work. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

    January 16, 2024 —
    January 10th marked the first day of the 2024 Colorado legislative session. After the pomp and circumstance of opening day, a total of eighty-six bills were introduced. Among them, two impact the construction and insurance industries. First, House Bill 24-1008 would make general contractors and their subcontractors, which are direct employers of an employee, jointly and severally liable for all debts owed based on wage claims or investigations. Essentially, if HB 24-1008 were to become law, general contractors would become the guarantors of wage payments to their subcontractors’ employees. The second bill, House Bill 24-1083, would require the Colorado Division of Insurance to conduct a study of construction liability insurance for construction professionals in Colorado and would require that, 14 days prior to closing the sale of a new residence, the seller provide the purchaser and the county clerk and recorder’s office certain information regarding the insurance coverage for the home. In a year when the legislature should be focusing on construction defect reform and affordable housing for Coloradoans, these first two bills will likely drive up the cost of new construction. House Bill 20-1008, sponsored by Representatives Duran and Froelich, Brown, deGruy Kennedy, Epps, Garcia, Hamrick, Hernandez, Joseph, Lieder, Lindstedt, Mabrey, Mauro, Ricks, Rutinel, Story, Velasco, and Vigil and Senators Danielson and Jaquez Lewis, Exum, Gonzales, Kolker, Marchman, and Sullivan, has been assigned to the House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The bill summary states: For wage claims brought by individuals working in the construction industry, the bill:
    • Requires that a subcontractor that receives a written demand for payment forward a copy of the written demand for payment to the general contractor within 3 business days after receipt;
    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

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    July 01, 2014 —
    The U.S. Supreme Court turned away an appeal by thousands of Sept. 11 attack victims who sought to sue Middle Eastern companies and people for allegedly providing crucial support to al-Qaeda. The victims sought to revive their claims against relatives of Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned National Commercial Bank and Saudi Binladen Group, a construction company controlled by the former al-Qaeda leader’s family. A federal appeals court threw out those claims in 2013, saying the victims didn’t allege a close enough connection between the defendants’ activities and the attacks. The appellate panel also said some defendants lacked sufficient ties to the U.S. to bring them within the jurisdiction of American courts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
    Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net