• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington civil engineer expert witnessSeattle Washington structural engineering expert witnessesSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness structural engineerSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnessesSeattle 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


    Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/18/22)

    Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

    Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

    Ohio Does Not Permit Retroactive Application of Statute of Repose

    Run Spot...Run!

    Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Will the AI Frenzy Continue in 2025?

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Deadline Nears for “Green Performance Bond” Implementation

    Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

    Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

    Insurance and Your Roof

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    Designers Face Fatal Pedestrian Bridge Collapse Fallout

    Death, Taxes and Attorneys’ Fees in Construction Disputes

    2017 California Construction Law Update

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

    BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

    OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

    California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    Insurer's Quote on Coverage for Theft by Hacker Creates Issue of Fact

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (3/20/24) – Construction Backlog Falls, National Association of Realtors Settle Litigation, and Commercial Real Estate Market’s Effect on City Cuts

    Insurer Wrongfully Denies Coverage When Household Member Fails to Submit to EUO

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Mortgagors Seek Coverage Under Mortgagee's Policy

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Construction Litigation Roundup: “Ursinus is Cleared!”

    Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

    Cal/OSHA ETS: Newest Version Effective Today

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Beth Cook Expands Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears

    Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

    Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case

    Bremer Whyte Congratulates Nicole Nuzzo on OCBA Professionalism and Ethics Committee Appointment

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab
    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. 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    July 14, 2016 —
    A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

    Endorsements Preclude Coverage for Alleged Faulty Workmanship

    December 30, 2019 —
    The court found coverage for alleged faulty workmanship was barred by the Combination Construction Related Endorsement and Roofing Endorsement. Evanston Ins. Co. v. A&S Roofing, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142828 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 22, 2019). In 2010, A&S entered into a subcontract with the contractor to replace roofs on three buildings owned by Oklahoma Property Investors (OPI). Eagle was a subcontractor of A&S that installed the roofing. After the roofs were replaced, OPI filed suit against A&S, alleging that A&S provided 15-year warranties for the roofing work performed on the three buildings and that A&S breached each warranty by performing the work in a poor manner, resulting in failures to each of the roofs. OPI sought monetary relief including damages to its properties, of its tenants, and costs of repairs to its properties. A&S's insurer, Evanston, denied coverage. Evanston pointed to the"legally obligated to pay" language of the CGL policy and argued coverage only extended to tort-based claims. Evanston argued the OPI lawsuit did not allege any tort claims, only warranty claims arising from contract. Second, Evanston contended the alleged "poor craftsmanship" giving rise to the claims in the OPI lawsuit that did not constitute an "occurrence" under the policy. 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

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    February 07, 2018 —
    In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    September 24, 2014 —
    On September 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Butler v. National Community Renaissance of California, upheld a district court's dismissal of certain defendants named in amended complaints, affirming the necessity of naming those known and unknown defendants in Plaintiff's original complaint. In April 2009, Plaintiff Zina Butler filed an action in federal district court, naming a single defendant, National Community Renaissance Corporation ("National"), for an alleged warrantless search of Plaintiff's apartment on April 18, 2007. The single page complaint asserted that the apartment manager provided a Section 8 investigator, a City employee and Sherriff deputies keys to Plaintiff's apartment and conducted a search in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Shortly after, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, with the only change being the addition of defendant, the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles ("HACoLA") in the caption. In May 2009, the court (on its own accord) dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend as "it [was] unclear whom Plaintiff intend[ed] to sue." In June 2009, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, identifying National and HACoLA in the caption as defendants, but separately identifying several other individuals and entities allegedly involved in the incident occurring in April of 2007 in the complaint's statement of facts. The Court, once again, dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend for the same reasons it dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefco, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Millennials Want Houses, Just Like Everybody Else

    September 17, 2014 —
    The proportion of homeownership among young adults has fallen from a third to a quarter over the past half-century. But the idea that today’s millennials are allergic to deeds and mortgages is a myth, says a report based on a survey of more than 1,000 Americans aged 18-29 by the Demand Institute, a nonprofit jointly operated by the Conference Board and Nielsen (NLSN). “Like most myths, there is some truth here—but only some,” says the report’s introduction. The true part is that millennials are financially squeezed because of “graduating into a weak job market with growing student loan debt,” Jeremy Burbank, a Demand Institute vice president, said in a statement. The false part, the report says, is that millennials don’t want to own their homes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Peter Coy, Bloomberg
    Mr. Coy may be contacted at pcoy3@bloomberg.net

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

    January 05, 2017 —
    Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

    Sun, Sand and Stir-Fry? Miami Woos Chinese for Property: Cities

    February 18, 2015 —
    (Bloomberg) -- Miami has a Little Havana and Little Haiti, a neighborhood known as Westonzuela and even the Venetian Islands. What it doesn’t have is a Chinatown. Shan-Jie Li wants to do something about it. The developer from the city of Linyi in China’s wintry northeast aims to make Florida’s most-populous metropolitan area, with its clean beaches and tropical climate, a destination for Chinese property investors. “We are focused on bringing to Miami the new wave of Chinese who are wealthy and educated,” Li said in a phone interview via a translator. “The environment in Miami makes for a very suitable lifestyle. Playing golf and going to the beach are huge attractions.” Reprinted courtesy of Blake Schmidt, Bloomberg and Bill Faries, Bloomberg Mr. Schmidt may be contacted at bschmidt16@bloomberg.net; Mr. Faries may be contacted at wfaries@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    November 06, 2013 —
    Scott Kiernan, an attorney in the Orlando offices of Becker & Poliakoff, writing on their Florida Construction Law Authority site notes that “nothing lasts forever, especially the right to sue for building defects.” Under Florida law, according to Mr. Kiernan, the time in which a condominium association can file a construction defect is “only 4 years from the time that the Condominium Association knew or should have known of the defect(s).” However, for defects that aren’t even discovered during those first four years, there is a ten-year period where claims for latent defects can become the subject of a construction defect claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of