• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington consulting engineersSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert witnessSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington slope failure expert witnessSeattle Washington structural concrete expertSeattle Washington architect expert witness
    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


    Seventh Circuit Confirms Additional Insured's Coverage for Alleged Construction Defects

    Traub Lieberman Partner Adam Joffe Named to 2022 Emerging Lawyers List

    Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination

    Court Dismisses Coverage Action In Lieu of Pending State Case

    Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

    Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Re-affirms American Girl To Find Coverage for Damage Caused by Subcontractors

    How Retro-Commissioning Can Extend the Life of a Building—and the Planet

    Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

    Another Municipality Takes Action to Address the Lack of Condominiums Being Built in its Jurisdiction

    Alleging and Proving a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim

    Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

    Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

    6,500 Bridges in Ohio Allegedly Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient

    Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

    Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

    Virginia Joins California and Nevada in Passing its Consumer Privacy Act

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage

    For Breach of Contract Claim, There Needs to be a Breach of a Contractual Duty

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

    The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at a Faster Pace in October

    Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

    Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

    Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

    Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

    Denial of Motion to Dissolve Lis Pendens Does Not Automatically Create Basis for Certiorari Relief

    Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion

    Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    The Metaphysics of When an Accident is an “Accident” (or Not) Under Your Insurance Policy

    Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment

    Exclusions Bar Coverage for Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing
    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

    Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

    March 28, 2012 —

    The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

    Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

    The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

    Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

    In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

    The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

    The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

    The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project

    May 20, 2015 —
    Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity at the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to raise $1925 to benefit the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA would also like to congratulate the raffle winners. Prizes included a DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone and Dodger baseball tickets. The Wounded Warrior Project’s purpose is to raise awareness and enlist the public’s aid for the needs of injured service members; to help injured service members aid and assist each other; and to provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members. Learn more about the Wounded Warrior Project... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (09/12/23) – Airbnb’s Future in New York City, MGM Resorts Suffer Cybersecurity Incident, and Insurance Costs Hitting Commercial Real Estate

    October 30, 2023 —
    In our latest roundup, the FDIC handles the portfolio from Signature Bank, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funds a new center at Illinois, the Athletics take their next steps in their move to Las Vegas, and more!
    1. For those looking to rent an Airbnb for future travel to New York City, it just became much harder with new rules taking effect on September 5th. (Natalie Lung, The Washington Post)
    2. This past weekend MGM Resorts suffered a cybersecurity incident that affected some of the company’s systems with the extent of the incident still unknown. (ABC)
    3. Among issues such as rent increases and general inflation, commercial real estate is also having to contend with rising insurance costs due to climate change. (Justin Worland, Time)
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    November 26, 2014 —
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Background Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii] Reprinted courtesy of Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs

    April 23, 2024 —
    Across the country, there is a split in authority as to whether an insurance company should be allowed to recoup defense costs where it is ultimately determined that the carrier has no duty to defend under the policy and the policy is silent as to such reimbursement. The Hawaii Supreme Court is the latest to enter the fray to address this very question, ruling in favor of policyholders in the recent case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company. Facts of the Case and Procedural History The Bodell case arose in response to a pair of certified questions from the US District Court for Hawaii to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The case involved a group of primary and excess insurers that sold liability policies to Bodell Construction and sought reimbursement of defense costs that the insurers had paid to defend a construction defect claim against Bodell. In the Underlying Action, the District Court ultimately ruled that the claims against Bodell Construction were not covered under the policies. Because the claims were not covered, the insurers demanded reimbursement of the defense fees from Bodell . Having determined there was no Hawaii state law on this issue, and in light of conflicting decisions in the district courts, the US District Court for Hawaii requested guidance from the Hawaii Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Amanda C. Stefanatos, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Stefanatos may be contacted at AStefanatos@sdvlaw.com

    Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized

    February 06, 2019 —
    The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) recently posted final adopted text for amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. The result of over five years of development efforts by the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research and CNRA, the amendments are the most comprehensive update to the CEQA Guidelines since 1998. In “Natural Resources Agency Finalizes Updates to the CEQA Guidelines,” Pillsbury environmental attorneys Norman F. Carlin, Kevin Ashe and Eric Moorman explore the wide range of issues covered in the amendments, including the new Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) methodology for analyzing transportation impacts; use of regulatory standards as significance thresholds; environmental baselines; and numerous procedural and technical improvements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA

    August 15, 2022 —
    This past General Assembly session, and after a governor’s amendment and with the convening of a study group, a new statute banning so-called “pay-if-paid” clauses from enforcement was passed. Some of the key features of the legislation are as follows: It does not take effect until January 1, 2023, and, For those construction contracts in which there is at least one general contractor and one subcontractor:
    1. It requires payment within 60 days of receipt of an invoice following the satisfactory performance of the work or within 7 days of receipt of payment by the Owner
    2. It allows for retainage
    3. It allows the higher-tier contractor to withhold money for improper performance
    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

    2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    July 09, 2019 —
    The 2019 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Below is a summary of those construction-related bills set to become law in 2019. Bills Becoming Law in 2019 HB 1247: Relating to Construction Bonds. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Once the Governor has approved the bill it becomes effective as of October 1, 2019. This bill addresses how to properly perfect a claim against a contractor’s payment bond. (1) The Notice of Nonpayment that must be served on the contractor and the surety, must be made under oath and include the following provisions: The nature of the labor or services performed or to be performed; The materials furnished or to be furnished; The amount paid on the account; and if known, the amount owed and the amount to become due. A Notice of Nonpayment that includes the sums for retainage must specify the portion of the amount claimed for retainage. (2) A subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier (claimant) who files a fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment loses their rights under the bond. The filing of a fraudulent notice is a complete defense to claimant’s claim against the bond. A notice is fraudulent if the claimant willfully exaggerated the amount due, willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished or prepared the notice with willful and gross negligence, which resulted in willful exaggeration. However, a minor mistake in the notice, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due, is not considered fraudulent. Please note that this provision mirrors the existing statute relative to a fraudulent lien. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com