• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington OSHA expert witness constructionSeattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington soil failure expert witnessSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestration
    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


    A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

    Blog Completes Sixteenth Year

    Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Missouri Asbestos Litigation Reform: New Bill Seeks to Establish Robust Disclosure Obligations

    Wood Wizardry in Oregon: Innovation Raises the Roof for PDX Terminal

    Termination of Construction Contracts

    No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

    New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%

    The Privette Doctrine and Its Exceptions: Court of Appeal Grapples With the Easy and Not So Easy

    HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

    As Fracture Questions Remain, Team Raced to Save Mississippi River Bridge

    Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Starting July 1, 2020 General Contractors are “Employers” for All Workers on Their Jobsite

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    Las Vegas Sphere Lawsuits Roll On in Nevada Courtrooms

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Bad News for Buyers: U.S. Mortgage Rates Hit Highest Since 2014

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

    U.S. Department of Defense Institutes New Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification

    Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

    Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

    2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Beware of Design Pitfalls In Unfamiliar Territory

    Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (05/23/23) – Distressed Prices, Carbon Removal and Climate Change

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

    Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

    A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile

    Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Seattle, Washington Building Expert Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Harrisburg Sought Support Before Ruinous Incinerator Retrofit

    September 20, 2017 —
    When former Harrisburg, Pa., Mayor Stephen Reed (D) and his aides set out to retrofit the city’s aging incinerator in late 2000, the project spun out of control over the coming years, enlarging the debt the city owed on the facility to $300 million and sinking Harrisburg into financial ruin. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Barnes, ENR and Richard Korman, ENR ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

    August 22, 2022 —
    Four Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2023. Congratulations to:
    • Bruce Cleeland – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Peter Dubrawski – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Denis Moriarty – Insurance law
    • Ted Penny – Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants
    Six Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2023. Congratulations to:
    • Courtney Arbucci – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Frances Brower – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • Kyle DiNicola – Transportation Law
    • Arezoo Jamshidi – Appellate Practice; Transportation Law
    • Kristian Moriarty – Transportation Law
    • Bethsaida Obra-White – Construction Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

    Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall

    October 10, 2013 —
    Although Virginia isn't in the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, some Virginia homeowners ended up with a case there. And now the court has to decide whether Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. can be sued in American courts for defects in its products. The case made its way to Louisiana after the courts consolidated cases from across the country. If the court decides that the homeowners can’t sue, they could appeal to the Supreme Court, although that’s likely a longshot. Or, the homeowners could sue in the Chinese courts, also not likely. More than 300 homes in Virginia are affected by fumes from the Chinese-made drywall, but only seven residents in the town of Hampton Roads are at the heart of the current case. They were chosen as representative of the entire group. Those seven have been collectively awarded $2.6 million, but the drywall manufacturer is appealing the judgement. If Taishan is victorious, then the damages already awarded will be overturned and there won’t be an option for the others. The drywall emitted gases which corroded metals in the homes. One couple, Steve and Liz Heischober went through seven air conditioning coils in three years, along with problems with corrosion of appliances and electrical systems. If the current suit succeeds, the Heischobers, and the other, will be compensated for their damages, including the costs of repair and relocation. If Taishan loses, they could be responsible for about $1 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

    September 21, 2020 —
    New York courts have become a battleground for challenges to foreclosure sales under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Another trial court of the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) issued a preliminary injunction in Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 Bway LLC, halting a mezzanine lender’s August 19, 2020 UCC foreclosure sale. The decision confirms that the impact of the pandemic on the value of commercial real estate, and upon traditional steps taken to conduct a foreclosure auction, are both key factors that courts will continue to consider in determining whether a UCC foreclosure sale scheduled during the pandemic can be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the UCC. THE CASE In Shelbourne, the mezzanine borrowers owned the membership or equity interests in the companies (collectively, the “Property Owner”) that held title to a 12-story office building in Albany, New York. As security for the $3.35 million mezzanine loan, the mezzanine borrowers pledged their equity interests to the mezzanine lender. In May 2020, the mezzanine lender declared a default under the mezzanine loan as a result of the Property Owner’s default under the $28.5 million senior loan secured by a mortgage against the office building. The mezzanine lender then scheduled a public UCC foreclosure sale of the equity interests in the Property Owner for August 19, 2020. If the sale had been held, the equity interests in the Property Owner (and right to control the Property Owner and office building) would have been transferred to the successful bidder, either the mezzanine lender or a third party purchaser. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury and Kristen E. Andreoli Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    September 10, 2014 —
    Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    February 07, 2018 —

    A Circuit Court in Florida issued a final judgment determining that the insured's obligation to comply with building code provisions was included in the property damage experienced. Pin-Pon Corp. v. Landmark, Am. Ins. Co., No. 312009CA012244 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 28, 2017). The decision is here.

    At trial, the plaintiff's architect testified that the total pricing for the code upgrades was $6.2 million. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that plaintiff's Exhibit 98, an Upgrade Insurance Claim, was improperly admitted as a business record. The appellate court stated that the jury may have considered Exhibit 98 in determining the amount of code upgrade damages. Therefore, the verdict was reversed and remanded for a trial on the code upgrade damages only.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawarii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

    March 06, 2022 —
    Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law. A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage” In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:
    “This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

    Walking the Tightrope of SB 35

    December 22, 2019 —
    Developers in California know that getting approval to build new housing projects can be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. But a new policy is finally coming into full effect which could help developers cut through those barriers. SB 35, enacted in 2017, streamlines the approval process for housing developments in areas with inadequate housing supply, so long as the developments meet certain criteria. We have written elsewhere about the initial impacts of SB 35. SB 35 has successfully allowed some developers to obtain their entitlements quickly and easily through a streamlined process, but some local governments have resisted the use of SB 35. For example, the City of Los Altos denied an application that attempted to obtain streamlining through SB 35, prompting a nonprofit housing organization to sue. In Cupertino, the Planning Commission Chairman advocated in April 2019 for rescinding the SB 35 approval of the redevelopment of the Vallco Mall, which would include over 2,400 units of housing, while some residents have sued to block the development. As a result, it is crucial for developers to understand the details of SB 35 and make sure to meet all of its requirements. Any misstep may allow a recalcitrant local government to deny that a development project qualifies for SB 35 treatment and attempt to block it. In November 2018, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released Guidelines to clarify the criteria for SB 35 and assist cities in determining whether projects qualify for streamlining. Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury attorneys Robert Howard, Alexander Walker and Matt Olhausen Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Walker may be contacted at alexander.walker@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of