• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Seattle Washington landscaping construction building expert Seattle Washington high-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington tract home building expert Seattle Washington office building building expert Seattle Washington parking structure building expert Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up building expert Seattle Washington multi family housing building expert Seattle Washington Subterranean parking building expert Seattle Washington production housing building expert Seattle Washington industrial building building expert Seattle Washington low-income housing building expert Seattle Washington retail construction building expert Seattle Washington townhome construction building expert Seattle Washington custom home building expert Seattle Washington hospital construction building expert Seattle Washington structural steel construction building expert Seattle Washington mid-rise construction building expert Seattle Washington custom homes building expert Seattle Washington Medical building building expert Seattle Washington condominium building expert Seattle Washington casino resort building expert Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction project management expert witnessSeattle Washington building envelope expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witnesses fenestrationSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington stucco expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington construction scheduling 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

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

    Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

    Poor Record Keeping = Going to the Poor House (or, why project documentation matters)

    Important New Reporting Requirement for Some Construction Defect Settlements

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme

    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton

    Coffee Beans, Mars and the 50 States: Civil Code 1542 Waivers and Latent Defects

    Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

    Read Before You Sign: Claim Waivers in Project Documents

    Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Preserving your Rights to Secure Payment on Construction Projects (with Examples)

    Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    Renovate or Demolish Milwaukee’s Historic City Hall?

    Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

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

    California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis


    20 Years of BHA at West Coast Casualty's CD Seminar: Chronicling BHA's Innovative Exhibits

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

    D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

    Why Construction Firms Should Think Differently on the Issue of Sustainability

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law
    Corporate Profile


    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

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    March 01, 2012 —

    Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.

    After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and cause it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.

    The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at

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

    Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties

    February 28, 2022 —
    In a recent case decided by Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC v. Headwaters Development Group LLC,[1] the court held that parties to an arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate related claims with non-parties to the agreement based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The case involved six joint venture agreements to develop three separate properties in Spokane, two joint venture agreements per property. One entity, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC (“DTI”), owned by David Terry, was a partner in each of the six joint venture agreements. DTI joint ventured with S.G. Spady Consulting (“SGSC”) and with Headwaters Development Group LLC (“HDG”) separately for each of the three properties. HDG owned the three properties, and SGSC was to provide construction management advice. Steve Spady was the principal of both HDG and SGSC. Stoneridge was a licensed general contractor, the principal of which was also Steve Spady. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Cressman may be contacted at

    No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work

    November 07, 2012 —
    Our post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report on recent developments in the same case where the court determined, despite earlier finding the insurer owed a defense, it had no duty to indemnify. Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012). Hendricks contracted to “prepare the site and supply and install concrete, tamped concrete, and colored concrete” at several service stations. The owner sued Hendricks, alleging the concrete “was defective and/or the work performed was not done in a workman-like manner and resulted in damages, and will require replacement.” Pekin Insurance Company agreed to defend Hendricks subject to a reservation of rights. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
    Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    December 08, 2016 —
    Many contractors contentedly accept the insurance policies presented to them by their insurance carriers. However, it is a much better practice to be an active participant in choosing the most appropriate coverage for your business and the specific jobs that you are performing. Use the following tips to be sure your company has the best and most comprehensive coverage.
    1. Never purchase a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy with a “sunset” provision limiting coverage under Products & Completed Operations liability (P&CO) to a 2, 3 or 4-year term. Why? Because the California statute of limitations for construction defect claims is generally 10 years.
    2. Never consider a “Claims-made” or “Modified Occurrence” coverage form which also have a built-in limitation as to the length or term of P&CO coverage. Example: If you purchase a claims-made policy and decide to “switch” your insurance to the preferred “occurrence” coverage form, unless a special provision is made prior to the new purchase, the claims-made coverage would become worthless after the sixty (60) day claims-reporting period.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at

    2022 Construction Outlook: Continuing Growth But at Slower Pace

    January 24, 2022 —
    In the midst of a pandemic that has lasted far longer than I think many of us thought it would, it’s been a study in contrasts:
    • There has been over 305 million COVID-19 cases and 5.5 million deaths worldwide since the start of the pandemic.
    • The U.S. stock market gained a whopping 26.9% in 2021.
    • The annual rate of inflation in the U.S. hit 6.8% in November 2021 the highest it has been in nearly 40 years.
    • The U.S. unemployment rate stood at 4.2% at the end of 2021, down from 14.7% in April 2020, the second highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression.
    • The Doomsday Clock struck 100 seconds before midnight in 2021 as scientists warn that global leaders are doing too little too late to combat climate change that has seen global temperatures rise roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the pre-industrial era.
    • 2021 saw the launch of the first all-civilian spaceflight by Elon Musk’s Space X which was just one of 16 private spaceflights by tech billionaires Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin.
    For the construction industry, when we started out in 2021, economists were estimating that construction starts would be up just 4% in 2021 after taking a 14% free-fall in 2020. As it turned out, construction starts increased 12% in 2021. That’s why economic forecasts should be viewed less like a marksmanship competition and more like horseshoes and hand grenades. Close is about the best you can realistically hope for. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost

    June 14, 2021 —
    This is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BP PLC, et al. v Mayor and City of Baltimore The issue the court confronted was a procedural matter: Can the defendant energy companies use the federal removal statutes (see 28 USC Section 1442) to remove a state law climate change lawsuit to federal court? Here, a group of energy companies were sued by the mayor and city council of Baltimore in state court, where they alleged that the defendants had concealed the adverse environmental effects of the fossil fuel products they promoted and sold in Baltimore City. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in many state courts, where typically it is alleged that the defendants can be sued on various common law theories. Rather than defend these cases in state court, the defendants have sought to remove these cases to federal court because climate change liability appears to be an issue that should be settled at the federal level. These efforts have been unsuccessful, with most federal trial and appellate courts holding that the reasons cited for removal (oftentimes the federal officer removal statute) have not been persuasive. In this case, both the Maryland federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals held they had no jurisdiction to authorize removal, and thus returned the case to the state court. Noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a removal action could be countenanced under Section 1442, thus creating a circuit split, the Supreme Court held that a straightforward reading of the removal statute empowers the reviewing court to examine all theories for removal that a district court has rejected. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit where it can decide, “in the first instance,” whether there actually exist grounds to remove this case to federal court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    March 16, 2017 —
    In continuing our series on common contract provisions found in construction contracts, this post highlights no-damages-for-delay clauses. Parties to a contract – particularly a construction contract – may agree that the performance of the contract must occur within a set amount of time. When a party is delayed in performing a contract, it may incur additional costs due to the delay. In most circumstances, unless the parties agree otherwise, the delayed party would be entitled to an extension of time to perform the contract. But it may also seek to recover the additional costs resulting from the delay. A no-damages-for-delay clause attempts to prevent the delayed party from recovering those additional costs. In construction contracts, an upstream party, such as an owner or prime contractor, typically relies on a no-damages-for-delay clause when presented with a delay claim by a downstream party, such as a subcontractor. Reprinted courtesy of David Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP and Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Shutdowns? What A Covid-19-Safe Construction Site Looks Like

    April 20, 2020 —
    There’s no end to published opinions about construction project shutdowns where the widely different types of jobsites are reduced to a single Dickensian nightmare crying out to be closed during this COVID-19 pandemic. ENR Editors ENR may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of