• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington architectural engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington reconstruction expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling expert witnessSeattle Washington defective construction expert
    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


    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    Beam Fracture on Closed Mississippi River Bridge Is at Least Two Years Old

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

    Changing Course Midstream Did Not Work in River Dredging Project

    Why You Should Consider “In House Counsel”

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    One Nation, Under Renovation

    Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    Designing a Fair Standard of Care in Design Agreements

    Cape Town Seeks World Cup Stadium Construction Collusion Damages

    Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Janeen Thomas Installed as State Director of WWBA, Receives First Ever President’s Award

    As Laura Wreaks Havoc Along The Gulf, Is Your Insurance Ready to Respond?

    It Was a Wild Week for Just About Everyone. Ok, Make that Everyone.

    Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects

    South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs

    Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

    Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

    Aecmaster’s Digital Twin: A New Era for Building Design

    Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

    DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

    Reasonableness of Liquidated Damages Determined at Time of Contract (or, You Can’t Look Back Again)

    Guidance for Construction Leaders: How Is the Americans With Disabilities Act Applied During the Pandemic?

    The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure

    Charles Eppolito Appointed Vice-Chair of the PBA Judicial Evaluation Commission and Receives Prestigious “President’s Award”

    Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

    Improper Means Exception and Tortious Interference Claims

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    No Coverage for Co-Restaurant Owners Who Are Not Named In Policy

    Recovering Unabsorbed Home Office Overhead Due to Delay

    Gatluak Ramdiet Named to The National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform: HB 17-1279 Approved by Colorado Legislature; Governor’s Approval Imminent

    Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry
    Corporate Profile

    SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.

    July 14, 2016 —
    American Lawyer, in its annual Diversity Scoreboard Survey, ranked Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) one of the four top law firms in the nation. Scores are based upon the firms’ combined percentage of minority lawyers as well as minority partners in U.S. offices. “Historically, law has not been among the most diverse of professions,” Partner Domingo Tan, Chair of WSHB’s Recruiting Committee, stated according to the firm’s media release. “This trend has recently begun to change and I am proud that our firm is one of the national leaders in recognizing and celebrating diversity as a core value.” WSHB Partner Jade Tran explained how the firm’s diversity benefits its clients: “At WSHB, we are a litigation powerhouse built upon the experiences drawn from our diverse attorney backgrounds. It’s this diversity that also makes our attorneys relatable to our clients who themselves stem from diverse backgrounds.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    July 15, 2019 —
    A general release of “unknown” claims through the effective date of the release does NOT bar “unaccrued” claims. This is especially important when it comes to fraud claims where the facts giving rise to the fraud may have occurred prior to the effective date in the release, but a party did not learn of the fraud until well after the effective date in the release. A recent opinion maintained that a general release that bars unknown claims does NOT mean a fraud claim will be barred since the last element to prove a fraud had not occurred, and thus, the fraud claim had not accrued until after the effective date in the release. See Falsetto v. Liss, Fla. L. Weekly D1340D (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The 2014 [Settlement] Agreement’s plain language released the parties only from “known or unknown” claims, not future or unaccrued claims. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraud claim had accrued — that is, whether Falsetto [party to Settlement Agreement] knew or through the exercise of due diligence should have known about the alleged fraud at the time the 2014 Agreement was executed — the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those fraud claims.”). 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

    Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

    September 12, 2023 —
    In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

    Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

    January 11, 2022 —
    Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. 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

    No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

    March 25, 2024 —
    The federal district court determined that the insurer was not obligated to defend construction defect claims under Kentucky law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222674 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). HRB, the owner of an apartment complex, filed an arbitration demand against the general contractor, Doster Commercial Construction, for allegedly doing faulty concrete work in the construction of the apartments. Doster added its concrete subcontrator Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete - and 16 other subcontractors - to the arbitration. Kentuckiana tendered the claim to its insurer, Westfield. Wesfield defended. Doster claimed it was an additional insured under the Westfield policy and also sought coverage. Westfield refused the defend Doster. Westfield argued there was no "occurrence." Westfield then sued both Doster and Kentuckiana in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend either. Westfield moved for a judgment on the pleadings. 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

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    July 30, 2015 —
    Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    November 07, 2012 —
    After buying a home in Louisiana, Mike Gines determined that the home’s air conditioning unit was insufficient to maintain an appropriate temperature. He contacted the home builder, D.R. Horton, Inc., which worked with the air conditioning installer, Reliant Heating & Air Conditioning, in order to repair the system. When the problems persisted, Gines filed a class action petition against Horton and Reliant in state court. Horton and Reliant moved the case to the federal courts, whereupon Gines asserted the defendants were in violation of the Louisiana New Home Warranty Act (NHWA). Horton stated that the claim under the NHWA was invalid, because Gines had not alleged actual physical damage to his home. The district court granted Horton’s motion to dismiss. Gines sought a reversal from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and sought to have two questions of state law addressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The district court ruled that the NHWA was the “sole remedy under Louisiana law for a purchaser of a new home with construction defects. Gines argued that court erred in this, but also conceded that this was the conclusion of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Further, Gines argued that a provision in the NHWA that allows the inclusion of construction defects that do not cause damage was satisfied by paragraph 6 of the contract. The court noted that Gines did not attach a copy of the contract to either the original or amended complaint, and so the court does not need to address these claims. However, the court cautioned that if a copy had been included, they still would have rejected the claim, as “the cited language does not indicate a waiver of the physical damage requirement.” They also note that “paragraph 13 of the contract shows that Gines was aware to the absence of any such waiver in the contract.” The court concludes that “the moral of this story is that in order to avoid the harsh result that has obtained here, the buyer of a newly constructed home in Louisiana should seek to obtain in the contract of sale an express waiver of the actual damage requirement of the NHWA.” The appeals court affirmed the decision of the circuit court and denied the application to certify questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar

    April 02, 2014 —
    A Hong Kong real-estate tycoon has spent the past year accumulating stakes in failing solar companies, piecing together what may become the biggest collection of photovoltaic factories in the world. Zheng Jianming, also known in Cantonese as Cheng Kin Ming, has spent or pledged about $533 million to buy assets that at their peak were worth almost $20 billion, according to regulatory filings in the U.S. and Hong Kong, where he has a home and office. The transactions, if completed, would transform Zheng, a newcomer to the solar industry, into one of its most powerful leaders. Another Zheng solar investment in 2012, a 30 percent stake in Shunfeng Photovoltaic International Ltd. (1165), has surged more than 2,900 percent and is now worth more than $745 million. Mr. Goossens may be contacted at egoossens1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Haas may be contacted at bhaas7@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ehren Goossens and Benjamin Haas, Bloomberg News