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


    Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Los Angeles Tower Halted Over Earthquake and other Concerns

    Fed. Judge Blocks Release of Records on FIU Bridge Collapse, Citing NTSB Investigation

    Construction Law Job Opps and How to Create Them

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Judge Gives Cintra Bid Protest of $9B Md. P3 Project Award New Life

    2021 California Construction Law Update

    How Long Does a Civil Lawsuit Take?

    Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill

    Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Former NJ Army Base $2B Makeover is 'Buzzsaw' of Activity

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Congratulations to all of our 2023 Attorneys Named as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    The G2G Mid-Year Roundup (2022)

    Storm Breaches California River's Levee, Thousands Evacuate

    Angels Among Us

    NYC-N.J. Gateway Rail-Tunnel Work May Start in 2023

    Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.

    Occurrence-Based Insurance Policies and Claims-Made Insurance Policies – There’s a Crucial Difference

    Certificates of Merit: Is Your Texas Certificate Sufficient?

    New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    Nonresidential Construction Employment Expands in August, Says ABC

    Construction Employers Beware: New, Easier Union Representation Process

    Proposed Law Protecting Tenants Amended: AB 828 Updated

    Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

    Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact

    Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!

    Florida Project Could Help Address Runoff, Algae Blooms

    Chambers USA 2022 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

    Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

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

    Explore Legal Immigration Options for Construction Companies

    Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

    How Palm Beach Balances Mansion Politics Against Climate Change

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/4/24) – New CRE Litmus Tests, Tech Integration in Real Estate and a Jump in Investor Home Purchases

    Wonder How 2021 May Differ From 2020? Federal Data Privacy May Be Enacted - Be Prepared

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    Regions Where Residential Construction Should Boom in 2014
    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

    Contractor Entitled to Defense for Alleged Faulty Workmanship of Subcontractor

    February 10, 2020 —
    Applying Nevada law, the Federal District Court in Florida found that the general contractor was entitled to a defense of claims based upon alleged faulty workmanship of a subcontractor. KB Home Jacksonville LLC v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151235 (M.D. Fla. Sept 5, 2019). KB Home completed six residential developments utilizing various subcontractors. One subcontractor was Florida State Plastering, LLC (FSP) for installing stucco. Eighty-eight complaints against KB Home implicated FSP's stucco work. Plaintiffs alleged that the stucco subcontractor's work suffered from construction defects, causing damages not only to the exterior stucco, but also the underling wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, wood sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and other property. Ironshore insured FSP under a CGL policy. KB Home was an additional insured for liability for property damage caused by "your work." KB Home was also insured under its own CGL policy with Liberty Mutual. Both insurers refused to defend. 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

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    October 22, 2014 —
    The Nebraska Supreme Court found the insurer properly denied coverage to the general contractor for damage to a home caused by settlement. Cizek Homes, Inc. v. Columbia Nat. Ins. Co., 2014 Neb. LEXIS 152 (Neb. Sept. 9, 2014). The general contractor built and then sold the residence. Subsequently, the homeowners complained that the soil beneath their residence was settling and causing damage to their home. The homeowners presented a draft complaint to the general contractor, alleging that negligence and faulty workmanship had caused damage to the home. The general contractor notified its carrier, Columbia. Coverage was denied. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

    February 16, 2017 —
    What is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

    July 19, 2021 —
    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the insured's claim for damage to her home caused by collapse. Stewart v. Metropolitan Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14221 (5th Girl May 13, 2021). One evening, the insured was awakened by a loud bang that shook her house. The next morning, she noticed the damage to her home, cracked sheetrock and sunken floors. She cut a hole through her floor and discovered that a couple of joists below her subfloor had broken and fallen away. The insured filed a claim with Metropolitan. Metropolitan hired an expert who found broken and deteriorated floor joists, deteriorated floor decking, walls not plumb and gaps in the wall-to-ceiling interface. It was determined that the rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture over the lifespan of the structure, resulting in the broken floor joists and unlevel floors. The insured's own expert agreed that termite damage and wood rot were the cause of the foundation collapse failure. 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

    Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

    September 17, 2015 —
    In a recent decision, the New York Supreme Court clarified the scope of privileged documents with respect to communications prepared by an insurer’s counsel prior to issuing a denial of coverage letter. The coverage litigation at issue arose out of MF Global Inc.’s claims under fidelity bonds for losses incurred as a result of large trades made by former MF Global employee, Evan Dooley. The trades cost MF Global, Dooley’s former clearing firm, $141 million after it had to reimburse the CME Group, Inc. futures clearinghouse that handled the trade. The insurers that issued the fidelity bonds contested coverage and sued MF Global in 2009. The opinion underscores the fact that there is no “bright line” rule in New York with respect to disclosure of communications in the insurance context prior to the issuance of a coverage determination – the disclosure requirement will instead turn on what’s actually privileged. In addition, while retention of counsel may not serve as an automatic shield for all documents prepared prior to the coverage decision, insurers will not be required to disclose, among other things, communications which include an “indicia of the provision of legal services.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com

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

    November 02, 2020 —
    In this summary of recent developments in environmental and regulatory law, venues are challenged, standing is upheld, statutory exemption is disputed and more. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Change Must Come from Within … Maryland? As the new term begins, the Court has agreed to review BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which held that a climate change damages case filed against many energy companies must be heard in the state courts of Maryland and not the federal courts. The petitioners argue that the federal office removal statute authorizes such removal, and the Fourth Circuit’s contrary decision conflicts with rulings from other circuit courts. THE FEDERAL COURTS Where Is the Fund in That? On September 25,2020, in U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the lower court should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. House of Representatives challenging the Executive Branch’s transferal of appropriated funds to the Department of Defense to build a physical barrier along the southern border of the United State. The case is More than $8 billion is at stake, a sum that had been transferred from various federal accounts not involved with building the wall. The appeals court held that the lower court should not have dismissed this lawsuit because the House of Representatives had standing to bring this lawsuit even if the U.S. Senate was not involved with this litigation. Accordingly, the case was returned to the lower court for additional findings, with the appeals court noting that the Constitution’s Appropriation’s Clause serves as an important check on the Executive Branch. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

    November 18, 2019 —
    Over the last decade or so, there has been far more judicial willingness to adopt legal theories that result in an increased risk of exposure to construction managers and consultants working on construction projects. This has resulted in a greater likelihood of lawsuits being filed that name construction managers and consultants as defendants and a greater likelihood of those lawsuits surviving efforts to have the lawsuits dismissed prior to trial. The consequence of more claims has led to increased costs for legal expenses, settlements and uncompensated personnel time devoted to the defense of the claims. This expansion of potential liability may be broken into two sets:
    1. claims for pure economic loss not arising from property damage or personal injury by parties not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant; and
    2. claims for property damage or personal injury by a party not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant.
    The first set concerns claims by a contractor against a construction manager or consultant that its breach of duties owed to the owner on a project and/or its provision of incomplete or inaccurate information on a project, which it knew, or should have reasonably anticipated, would be relied on by the contractor, resulted in damages to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Cessar may be contacted at scessar@eckertseamans.com

    How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

    September 17, 2015 —
    The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. As noted below, in order to pursue this remedy, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). 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