• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington building code compliance expert witnessSeattle Washington civil engineering expert witnessSeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness roofingSeattle Washington consulting general contractor
    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


    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Court of Appeals Discusses Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Public Works Contracting

    Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

    A Teaming Agreement is Still a Contract (or, Be Careful with Agreements to Agree)

    Natural Hydrogen May Seem New in Town, but It’s Been Here All Along

    Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay on OSHA’s COVID-19 Temporary Emergency Standards. Supreme Court to Review

    There’s an Unusual Thing Happening in the Housing Market

    Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Carolinas Storm Damage Tally Impeded by Lingering Floods

    Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms

    Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    Digital Twins – Interview with Cristina Savian

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy

    Houston Office Secures Favorable Verdict in Trespass and Nuisance Case Involving Subcontractor’s Accidental Installation of Storm Sewer Pipe on Plaintiff’s Property

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Insurer in Bad Faith Due to Adjuster's Failure to Keep Abreast of Case Law

    California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

    Michigan Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade, Improving from "D+" Grade in 2018

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

    Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

    Can an App Renovate a Neighborhood?

    Recycled Water and New Construction. New Standards Being Considered

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

    New Orleans Drainage System Recognized as Historic Civil Engineering Landmark

    Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship

    Killer Subcontract Provisions

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

    Wilke Fleury Welcomes New Civil Litigation Attorney

    Earthquake Hits Mid-Atlantic Region; No Immediate Damage Reports

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

    Heathrow Speeds New-Runway Spending Before Construction Approval

    Legislative Update: Bid Protest Law Changes to Benefit Contractors

    MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice
    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

    Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

    October 24, 2022 —
    Evanston Ins Co. v. Tex. Concrete and Sand Gravel, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2022) is a coverage dispute over Evanston Insurance Co.’s (“Evanston”) duty to defend and indemnify Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc. (“Texas Concrete”) and Apcon Services, LLC (“Apcon”) (collectively, the “Insureds”) for their contributions to the degradation of the waterways and retention lakes built to control flooding in the Houston area. On August 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho recommended that Evanston’s motion for summary judgment be denied. On August 30, 2022, District Court Judge Alfred H. Bennett adopted Judge Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendations. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused significant flooding of the Houston area, which resulted in large-scale property damage. The underlying lawsuits alleged that, since 1954, Lake Houston’s waterways sustained a steady decline in capacity because of the release of materials into the waterway system. The Insureds allegedly contributed to the decline by allowing “materials and substances” (such as processed water, silt, sand, sediment, dirt, rock, and aggregate) to run off their privately controlled properties and into the Houston waterways. The reduced capacity, allegedly caused in part by the Insureds, exacerbated the flooding after Hurricane Harvey hit, increasing the damage from the hurricane. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

    Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is Proud to Announce Jeannette Garcia Has Been Elected as Secretary of the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County!

    February 03, 2020 —
    The Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County is an affiliate bar of the OCBA. The OC HBA promotes education, unity, and excellence in the Hispanic legal community by expanding the business and professional opportunities available to its members, enhancing the members’ business and professional stature in the Hispanic community, increasing the participation of Hispanic leaders in civic affairs and enhancing the quality of life for the members and the community. Associate Jeannette Garcia has been a member of the OC HBA since 2012, a board member since 2017 and an executive board member since 2018. Jeannette will now serve as Secretary of the OC HBA for the 2020 term. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Contractors’ Right to Sue in Washington Requires Registration

    July 03, 2022 —
    Summary: In Washington, contractors must be properly registered in order to pursue a legal action against a customer for breach of contract. Dobson v. Archibald, a February 2022 decision by the Washington Court of Appeals, reinforced how the governing statute – RCW 18.27.080 – does not simply create an affirmative defense but establishes a mandatory pleading prerequisite.1 Discussion: In 2018, Archibald hired Dobson to refinish his hardwood floors for $3,200. Dobson was not a registered contractor. She had been referred to Archibald by acquaintances who were familiar with her construction and home repair work, including improvements Dobson had made to her own home. Archibald paid Dobson a $700 deposit before Dobson began her work. At the completion of the floor repair project, Archibald was unhappy with the appearance of the floors and informed Dobson that he would not pay the remaining $2,500. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Leary, Gordon & Rees
    Mr. Leary may be contacted at jleary@grsm.com

    Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

    February 07, 2018 —
    In September 2017, a Texas Federal district judge ruled that that Personal and Advertising Injury coverage in a CGL policy did not require physical occupancy in a landlord-tenant dispute. In the underlying lawsuit, restaurant owner Ziggy Gruber alleged that John Dunn, the landlord of a Houston shopping center, wrongfully interfered with his right of occupancy at the shopping center by failing to complete the negotiation of a lease and preventing his occupancy of the space. Gruber further alleged that he had acquired a direct interest in the premises and became a rightful tenant but as a result of Dunn’s interference, he was never able to open his restaurant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Afua Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

    January 06, 2012 —

    In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

    McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

    AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

    She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

    Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coping With The New Cap And Trade Law

    January 04, 2023 —
    On May 17, 2021, Governor Jay Inslee signed a new carbon pricing bill making Washington only the second in the nation to have such an extensive climate-change reduction policy (Senate Bill 5126). The Stated Purpose of the New Law: SB5126 creates a system to cap carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and individual businesses are provided specific limits on emissions (“Cap”). Those businesses then have to purchase credits for allowed emissions. The businesses which emit fewer greenhouse gases than the credits allotted them can sell their credits to businesses that are not reducing emissions as quickly (“Trade”). The overall pool of carbon credits are to be gradually reduced by 2050 to hit a goal of net-zero emissions. This bill is colloquially known as the “Cap and Trade Law.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    The Burden of Betterment

    February 23, 2017 —
    The concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability. In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7] Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Charlson may be contacted at ryan.charlson@csklegal.com

    COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

    April 13, 2020 —
    Is a cash register that is not being used damaged property? When you need to wash a table, a chair, or a section of flooring with readily available cleaning products to make them safe and useable, are you repairing damaged property? Is a spilled cup of coffee waiting to be wiped up actual damage to the premises? If your customers stay home to help stop the spread of a virus, has there been a physical loss inside your shuttered store or restaurant? The insuring agreements typically found in commercial property insurance policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property as the triggering event. Without establishing direct physical loss or damage a policyholder cannot meet its burden to trigger coverage for a purely economic loss of business income resulting from shuttering its business due to concerns over exposure to—or even the actual presence of—COVID-19. Despite this well-understood policy language, it is already beyond question that insurers will confront creative—albeit strained—arguments from policyholder firms attempting to trigger coverage for pure economic loss. The scope of the human and economic tragedy we all face will be matched by the scope of the effort to force the financial harm onto insurance companies. The plaintiffs in what appears to be the first-filed case seeking a declaratory judgment in the context of first-party insurance coverage rely on the assertion that “contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces” of its establishment, a New Orleans restaurant, to trigger coverage for business interruption.[1] See Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that the property is insured under an “all risk policy” defining “covered causes of loss” as “direct physical loss.” The plaintiffs rely on the alleged presence of the virus on “the surface of objects” in certain conditions and the need to clean those surfaces. They go so far as to claim that “[a]ny effort by [the insurer] to deny the reality that the virus causes physical damage and loss would constitute a false and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. . . .” Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown and Michelle Bernard Mr. Blyskal may be contacted at tblatchley@grsm.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at dbrown@grsm.com Ms. Bernard may be contacted at mbernard@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of