• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium building expert Seattle Washington institutional building building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington condominiums building expert Seattle Washington housing building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessSeattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington hospital construction expert witnessSeattle Washington forensic architectSeattle Washington structural concrete expertSeattle Washington construction project management expert witnesses
    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


    Miller Act Claim for Unsigned Change Orders

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

    Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    Dorian’s Wrath: How Event Cancellation Insurance Helps Businesses Recoup Losses from Severe Weather

    Hurricane Handbook: A Policyholder's Guide to Handling Claims during Hurricane Season

    California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

    The New Industrial Revolution: Rebuilding America and the World

    Drug Company Provides Cure for Development Woes

    What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

    Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

    Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

    A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

    Understanding the Limits of Privilege When Applied to Witness Prep Sessions

    Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!

    HOA Coalition Statement on Construction-Defects Transparency Legislation

    Insurer's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Construction Defect Claim Rejected

    Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

    DoD Issues Guidance on Inflation Adjustments for Contractors

    Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

    Fire Fears After Grenfell Disaster Set Back Wood Building in UK

    Mechanic’s Liens- Big Exception

    Major Change to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

    Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Wrongful Death Claims Are Subject to the Four-Year Statute of Repose for Medical Claims

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

    BIOHM Seeks to Turn Plastic Waste into Insulation Material with Mushrooms

    Coverage, Bad Faith Upheld In Construction Defect Case

    Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Navigating the New Landscape: How AB 12 and SB 567 Impact Landlords and Tenants in California

    ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

    NYPD Investigating Two White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

    Texas LGI Homes Goes After First-Time Homeowners

    Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

    The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else

    Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls
    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

    You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply

    November 16, 2020 —
    If you are a contractor, you are aware of workers’ compensation immunity when it comes to injuries on the site; and, if not, you should be. It is this workers’ compensation immunity (where workers compensation is the exclusive form of liability for an injured employee) which is why a contractor should generally always want to ensure its subcontractors have workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation immunity would protect a contractor that is being sued by a subcontractor’s employees that are injured on the job. For more information on workers’ compensation immunity, please check out this article and this article. In this regard, Florida Statute s. 440.10(1)(b) provides:
    In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.
    (If the subcontractor does not have workers’ compensation insurance, the contractor is deemed the statutory employer and its workers’ compensation insurance would apply. Otherwise, the subcontractor’s workers compensation insurance would apply.) 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

    Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

    February 02, 2017 —
    Nina Agabian, a retired director of research in global health science at the University of California, bought a 29th-floor apartment in San Francisco’s Millennium Tower in 2010. “It was supposed to be a wonderful building,” she said in January, sitting in a leather chair in the building’s vast, low-lit, owner's-club level. “For many of us, who left our business lives to start our older years, this had become a nice, comfortable place.” The building, which opened in 2008 and was touted as the most luxurious tower in San Francisco, became a beacon of the city’s burgeoning wealth, attracting tech millionaires, venture capitalists, and even the San Francisco 49ers retired quarterback Joe Montana. The 58-story tower's shine faded on May 10, 2016, when Agabian attended a homeowners association meeting and was informed that the building had sunk 16 inches into the earth and tilted over 15 inches at its tip and 2 inches at the base, according to suits filed by residents and the city of San Francisco. “You can imagine how distressed we were to know that, for one, our lifetime investment and savings are at risk,” she said. “And we have no idea whether or not there’s a fix to it, and if there is a fix to it, what it will entail.” Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Kartikay Mehrotra, Bloomberg Mr. Tarmy may be followed on Twitter @jstarmy Mr. Mehrotra may be followed on Twitter @kartikaym Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

    May 10, 2012 —

    In the case Antangan v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership (Cal. App., 2012), Plaintiffs appealed “an order vacating a judgment and entering a modified judgment in their construction defect action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership,” while the Defendant, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) appealed “an order of the judicial referee denying its motion to strike and tax costs.”

    On the Antagon issue, the appeals court concluded that “the trial court did not err by vacating and modifying its judgment so that the cost of referee’s fees would be equally divided by the parties and consistent with a prior stipulation they filed in court.”

    On the Shea Homes issue, the appeals court concluded: “1) the judicial referee did not err by ruling that plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (§ 998) were validly served on Shea Homes’ counsel, 2) the offers substantially complied with statutory requirements, 3) the offers were not required to be apportioned, and 4) the referee’s award of $5,000 as costs for a person assisting plaintiffs’ counsel was not an abuse of discretion.” The appeals court affirmed the judgment.

    Here is a brief history of the trial case: “Plaintiffs Chito Antangan, Jimmy Alcova and other homeowners brought an action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for damages alleging that the properties they purchased from these ‘developer defendants’ were defective. Plaintiffs claimed numerous construction defects required them ‘to incur expenses’ for ‘restoration and repairs’ and the value of their homes had been diminished.”

    In response, Shea Homes filed a motion for an order to appoint a judicial referee. The motion was granted and it was ruled that “a referee would ‘try all issues’ and ‘report a statement of decision to this court.’”

    On May 10, 2010 the judicial referee (Thompson) “awarded plaintiffs damages and various costs, and ruled that ‘Shea Homes shall bear all of the Referee’s fees.’” The latter ruling would become a matter for contention later on.

    In July of 2010, the plaintiffs “sought, among other things, $54,409.90 for expert fees, and $14,812.50 for the services of Melissa Fox for ‘exhibit preparation & trial presentation.’ Shea Homes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs claiming: 1) Fox was a paralegal, 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, and 3) the fees for Fox’s services were an indirect and improper method to obtain attorney’s fees. The referee disagreed and awarded $5,000 for Fox’s services. The referee also ruled that plaintiffs had properly served valid offers to compromise (§ 998) on Shea Homes’ counsel in 2009. He said those offers to defendants in the case at that time did not have to be apportioned.”

    “Antangan contends the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment, which ordered Shea Homes to pay all the referee’s fees. We disagree.”

    Antagon contended that the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment regarding Shea Homes paying the referee’s fees. The appeals court disagreed: “A trial court has inherent authority to vacate or correct a judgment that is void on its face, incorrect, or entered by mistake. (§ 473; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998),67 Cal.App.4th 1228; Olivera

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Congratulations to San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy for Obtaining a Complete Defense Verdict!

    November 13, 2023 —
    Partner Johnpaul Salem and Senior Associate Scott Hoy just concluded a 4-week trial defending a local renowned hotel in San Diego. Plaintiff alleged premises liability against BWB&O’s client arguing plaintiff was injured while riding in an elevator due to alleged negligent maintenance and inspection. Plaintiff brought in a “hired gun” elevator expert from Missouri and sought $25 million in damages for two fractured ankles, a compound tibia fracture, and lifelong CRPS/PTDS/anxiety. BWB&O argued any injuries sustained were a direct result of Plaintiff’s actions. After a passionate and powerful closing argument by Mr. Salem, attacking the foundation of Plaintiff’s expert’s opinions and presenting vigilance of the hotel in the safety of its guests, the jury unanimously ruled in BWB&O’s client’s favor. Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

    January 08, 2024 —
    When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

    Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery

    November 27, 2023 —
    Timely notice is an important first step in a successful insurance recovery. But insurance policies are not always straightforward in identifying how, when, and to whom notice must be provided. Some states may also impose additional procedural hurdles, including requiring policyholders to contact their insurers before filing suit (the idea behind this requirement is that it may avoid litigation). Failing to comply with pre-suit requirements can hurt the policyholder’s recovery, as illustrated in a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas. In NewcrestImage Holdings, LLC v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-039-BR (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023), the court considered whether NewcrestImage had forfeited its right to recover attorneys’ fees by failing to give Travelers pre-suit notice. NewcrestImage had filed suit against Travelers to obtain coverage for damage to its hotel property arising out of Winter Storm Uri. In its answer, Travelers asserted that NewcrestImage failed to provide the insurer with pre-suit notice as required under the Texas Insurance Code, and that if NewcrestImage successfully proved it was entitled to coverage, NewcrestImage’s failure to provide pre-suit notice precluded it from recovering attorneys’ fees. Travelers later moved to strike the claim for attorneys’ fees on that basis. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    CA Homeowners Challenging Alternate Pre-Litigation Procedures

    April 15, 2014 —
    Garret Murai on his California Construction Law blog discussed how some homeowners have challenged homebuilders who use alternative pre-litigation procedures instead of the rules of California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800). “The Right to Repair Act, which was intended to help curb the then rising tide of residential construction defect litigation, provides mandatory pre-litigation procedures which must be followed in construction defect cases involving new residential construction,” Murai explained. “One of the major exceptions to the statutory pre-litigation procedures under SB 800, however, is that a homebuilder can opt to use its own alternative pre-litigation procedures if disclosed to a homebuyer.” Murai used The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court case to demonstrate that homeowners can challenge the builder’s use of alternative pre-litigation procedures, and win if they can prove that the alternate procedures are “unconscionable.” “For homebuilders, the take away is that, sure you can adopt your own alternative pre-litigation procedures under the Right to Repair,” Murai stated, “but if you do just know that they may be challenged by homeowners who may contend that they are unconscionable, which kinda defeats the whole idea behind SB 800 which was intended to reduce the amount of litigation the first place.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse

    October 28, 2015 —
    In Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company (No. B261172, filed 10/21/15), a California appeals court held that coverage for collapse in a homeowners policy does not extend to prophylactic repairs undertaken to mitigate damage before actual collapse of the structure. In Grebow, the insureds had a general contractor inspect the rear deck of their house because of recurring watermarks. The contractor discovered severe decay in the steel beams and poles supporting the second floor of the house. He opined that they could not support the upper portion of the house, and that a large portion of the house would fall. A structural engineer agreed, blaming decay and corrosion. The insureds were advised not to enter the top part of the house, and they contracted for repairs. They also made a claim to Mercury, which denied coverage. The insureds ultimately spent $91,000 out of pocket having the home remediated. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of