• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington architectural expert witnessSeattle Washington fenestration expert witnessSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington defective construction expertSeattle Washington expert witness windowsSeattle Washington engineering consultantSeattle Washington OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    New Jersey Traffic Circle to be Eliminated after 12 Years of Discussion

    Paris ‘Locks of Love’ Overload Bridges, Threatening Structures

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Trump Tower Is Now One of NYC’s Least-Desirable Luxury Buildings

    White House Seeks $310M To Fix Critical San Diego Wastewater Plant

    The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

    Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions

    Pre-Judgment Interest Not Awarded Under Flood Policy

    Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    A Game of Texas Hold’em: How Texas Stopped Wage Increases for Salaried Exempt Employees Nationwide

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

    Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/18/24) – Cannabis’ Effect on Real Estate, AI’s Capabilities for Fund Managers and CRE’s Exposure on Large Banks

    Settlement Reached on Troubled Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas

    Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess

    Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Eighth Circuit Rejects Retroactive Application of Construction Defect Legislation

    US Civil Rights Tools Are Failing the Most Polluted Black Communities

    General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Construction Defect Litigation at San Diego’s Alicante Condominiums?

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits

    Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable

    Texas Legislative Update

    What Makes a Great Lawyer?

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (01/25/23) – Artificial Intelligence, Proptech Innovation, and Drone Adoption

    Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished

    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

    Bill would expand multi-year construction and procurement authority in Georgia

    The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits

    Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    First-Time Buyers Home Sales Stagnates

    Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits

    Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust

    Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

    West Coast Casualty’s Quarter Century of Service

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

    San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim

    Claims Made Insurance Policies

    What is an Alternative Dispute Resolution?
    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. Drawing 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

    Insurer Motion to Intervene in Underlying Case Denied

    August 10, 2021 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the insurer defending under a reservation of rights could not intervene in the underlying case after the insured assigned its rights to any bad faith claim against the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n, Inc., 2021 Colo. LEXIS 365 (Colo. May 24, 2021). Bolt Factory initiated a construction defects lawsuit against various contractors. Several defendants filed third-party complaints against subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Company. Auto-Owners agreed to defend its insured, Sierra Glass, under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners declined to settle with Bolt Factory for $1.9 million, within policy limits. Sierra Glass then retains independent counsel and entered into a settlement with Bolt Factory. The settlement allowed Sierra Glass to assign its bad faith claims to Bolt Factory in exchange for the right to pursue the insurer for payment of the excess judgment rather than Sierra Glass. Instead of entering into a stipulated judgment, Bolt Factory and Sierra Glass proceeded to an abbreviated trial. 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

    “You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

    January 28, 2025 —
    Several years ago, Louisiana enacted a law prescribing a mandamus proceeding for unpaid contract sums purportedly owed by a public entity to a contractor – Louisiana Revised Statute 38:2191. The statute tackles both progress payments and final payment, distinguishing between the two and allowing withholding of a progress payment when there is “reasonable cause” to do so. On the other hand, at least one Louisiana appellate decision held on the topic of final payment: once a final payment amount is “due” per the statute – based upon passage expiration of the lien period following “formal final acceptance” – the act of making the final payment is purely ministerial and not subject to defenses. According to that court, a defense to payment based on assessed liquidated damages – because the damages were disputed by the contractor – could not trump the essence of the statute allowing the contractor to pursue mandamus to collect the final payment. More recently, on a public works levee project in Lafourche Parish, a dispute arose during the work concerning the means to secure material for constructing the levees. The net effect of the dispute entailed a major change in the contract price. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
    Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    November 12, 2019 —
    On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    November 06, 2013 —
    Mark M. Palombaro, a former vice president at Simon Property Group, a development firm, has plead guilty to receiving $766,000 from the head of a construction firm in payback for the projects. Robert E. Crawford at Fox Chapel then overbilled for these projects, which were located in Seattle, Washington and Laguna Beach, California, in order that he and Mr. Palombaro would profit. The total value of the projects, overbilling included, was $15 million. The two men settled a civil suit brought by Simon Property Group by paying $3.3 million. Mr. Crawford plead guilty in June. He admitted to bribing Mr. Palombaro. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    December 19, 2018 —
    Every year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspects workplaces around the country for safety and occupational hazards. In 2017 alone, OSHA conducted 32,408 inspections – more than half of which were unprogrammed inspections. There are six reasons OSHA might come knocking on the door. They are (in order of priority):
    1. imminent danger situations;
    2. severe injuries and illnesses;
    3. worker complaints;
    4. referrals;
    5. targeted inspections; and
    6. follow-up inspections.
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker Rains, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Rains may be contacted at prains@fbbins.com

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    December 04, 2013 —
    Things are looking up for Michigan home builders. Rovert Filka, the chief executive officer of the Home Builders Association of Michigan said that “home values are starting to rise as a result of so little production over the last five years.” The group anticipates that about 14,000 new homes will be built in Michigan over the next year. Jason Burton, owner of Price Right Builders, noted that the increase in building has been slow. “Locally we are seeing the climb, but it’s a slow climb,” he said. “We’ve got a long way to go to get back to where we were.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    December 19, 2018 —
    The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on whether the policy covered the collapse of basement walls based upon factual issues presented. Sirois v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158508 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2018). The insureds' purchased their home in 2010. In December 2015, a crack in the basement wall was noticed. It was not thought to be a serious problem. But in 2016, the insured read an article about defective concrete problems affecting homeowners in Connecticut. An inspector, Dean Soucy, was hired. He found faults and cracks in the foundation walls. Thereafter, a claim was submitted to USAA under homeowners' policies issued over the years to the insureds. USAA denied coverage. 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

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    July 23, 2014 —
    In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage