• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building Building Consultant Seattle Washington office building Building Consultant Seattle Washington casino resort Building Consultant Seattle Washington parking structure Building Consultant Seattle Washington custom homes Building Consultant Seattle Washington housing Building Consultant Seattle Washington institutional building Building Consultant Seattle Washington tract home Building Consultant Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Seattle Washington custom home Building Consultant Seattle Washington low-income housing Building Consultant Seattle Washington townhome construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington retail construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington production housing Building Consultant Seattle Washington industrial building Building Consultant Seattle Washington high-rise construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington landscaping construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington multi family housing Building Consultant Seattle Washington mid-rise construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington condominium Building Consultant Seattle Washington Subterranean parking Building Consultant Seattle Washington hospital construction Building Consultant Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington construction defect expert witnessSeattle Washington roofing construction expertSeattle Washington construction code expert witnessSeattle Washington architectural expert witnessSeattle Washington expert witness concrete failureSeattle Washington construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Seattle Washington

    A license is required for plumbing, and electrical trades. Businesses must register with the Secretary of State.

    Building Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    MBuilders Association of King & Snohomish Counties
    Local # 4955
    335 116th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98004

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kitsap County
    Local # 4944
    5251 Auto Ctr Way
    Bremerton, WA 98312

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Spokane
    Local # 4966
    5813 E 4th Ave Ste 201
    Spokane, WA 99212

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of North Central
    Local # 4957
    PO Box 2065
    Wenatchee, WA 98801

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    MBuilders Association of Pierce County
    Local # 4977
    PO Box 1913 Suite 301
    Tacoma, WA 98401

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Jefferson County Home Builders Association
    Local # 4947
    PO Box 1399
    Port Hadlock, WA 98339

    Seattle Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Seattle Washington

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

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Canadian Developer Faces Charges After Massive Fire on Construction Site

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera

    Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    RCW 82.32.655 Tax Avoidance Statute/Speculative Building


    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    Shea Homes CEO Receives Hearthstone Builder Humanitarian Award

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Zoning Hearing Notice Addressed by Georgia Appeals Court

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

    The General Assembly Seems Ready to Provide Some Consistency in Mechanic’s Lien Waiver

    WSHB Ranks No.10 in Law360’s Best of Law Firms for Women

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award

    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

    Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

    Speeding up Infrastructure Projects with the Cloud

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

    Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice

    Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Home Building Mergers and Acquisitions 2014 Predictions

    Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule
    Corporate Profile


    The Seattle, Washington Building Consultant Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging 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 Consultant News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Ten Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    September 17, 2018 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – AUGUST 15, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that ten of the firm's Newport Beach attorneys were recently recognized in their respective practice areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019. Attorneys named to The Best Lawyers in America, include:
    Jason M. Caruso Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs
    Michael S. Cucchissi Real Estate Law
    Jeffrey M. Dennis Insurance Law
    Gregory L. Dillion Commercial Litigation Construction Law Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Litigation - Real Estate
    Joseph A. Ferrentino Litigation - Construction Litigation - Real Estate
    Thomas F. Newmeyer Commercial Litigation Litigation - Real Estate
    John O'Hara Litigation - Construction
    Bonnie T. Roadarmel Insurance Law
    Jane Samson Real Estate Law
    Carol Sherman Zaist Commercial Litigation
    Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication within the legal profession with a history of over 35 years. Attorneys are selected through exhaustive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. Their listings are published in 75 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. Newmeyer & Dillion is immensely proud of these lawyers and looks forward to their continued contributions to the firm, and the Orange County community as a whole. About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of cybersecurity and privacy, corporate, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

    October 16, 2018 —
    Economic damages, unlike non-economic damages (such as those in personal injury disputes), need to rest on a reasonable basis. Economic damages are those routinely seen in a construction dispute. These damages cannot be based on conjecture or guesswork and need to be supported by competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, the economic damages will be deemed too speculative because they are not reasonably quantifiable. I recently discussed a case involving the professional boxer Canelo Alvarez that was sued by a former promoter for unjust enrichment. Although the promoter recovered a jury verdict for unjust enrichment damages against Canelo Alvarez, the verdict was reversed because the methodology utilized by the promoter to demonstrate damages was speculative. This is definitely not what a plaintiff wants to happen after prevailing at the trial level! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    July 21, 2018 —
    The Pensacola News Journal reported that cracks were discovered again in the Pensacola Bay Bridge, which caused construction of said bridge to be halted once more: “Cracks found in a portion of the concrete in the Pensacola Bay Bridge project have twice halted construction in the last several months, raising concerns about oversight and disclosure from the state, particularly in light of the Miami bridge collapse earlier this year.” The Florida Department of Transportation stated “that the cracks were found during a routine visual inspection of newly placed concrete in March,” according to the Pensacola News Journal. The $400 million project began in 2017 and was scheduled to be completed by 2020. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

    July 18, 2018 —
    New Jersey is the latest to join the list of states that have enacted or are considering enacting legislation that would authorize policyholders to file civil suits against first-party insurers for unfair business practices, such as unreasonably delaying or denying benefit payments, engaging in false advertising, or otherwise committing a wide range of unfair or deceptive practices. On June 7, the New Jersey Senate passed a bill entitled the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The Act would create a new statutory cause of action pursuant to which a first-party insurer would be liable for bad faith based on a single statutory violation, thereby entitling an aggrieved policyholder to collect triple damages and attorneys’ fees. The proposed legislation is now before the state’s General Assembly for further consideration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

    The Unpost, Post: Dynamex and the Construction Indianapolis

    July 10, 2018 —
    It’s been three months since the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S222732 (April 30, 2018) and I’ve had a couple of readers (perhaps my only two) ask whether I was going to write about the decision. I’m not. Well, obviously, that’s not quite true if you’re reading this. Rather, I’ll tell you why I’m writing about not writing about the decision. Dynamex is certainly an important decision and one that will likely be cited for decades to come. In short, Dynamex changed the nearly 30-year old test, first elucidated in S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, for determining whether a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor or an employee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

    October 30, 2018 —
    On October 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., Slip Op. 2018-Ohio-4057, finding that a general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnity from its CGL insurer in a construction defect suit brought by a project owner post-project completion. With this decision, Ohio has solidified its place amongst a diminishing number of states, including Pennsylvania and Kentucky, which hold that there is no coverage for defective construction claims because those losses do not present the level of fortuity required to trigger CGL coverage. This places Ohio amongst the worst in the country on this issue at a time when numerous states have abandoned old precedent and moved towards a policyholder friendly analysis. Ohio Northern University (“ONU”) hired Charles Construction Services, Inc. (“CCS”) to construct the University Inn and Conference Center, a new hotel and conference center on their campus in Ada, Ohio. CCS purchased CGL insurance from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) insuring the project. Following completion of the project, ONU sued CCS alleging defects in the construction of the completed project, including allegations that windows improperly installed by one subcontractor led to damage to walls built by another subcontractor. CIC agreed to defend CCS under a reservation of rights but intervened in the action between ONU and CCS to pursue a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured for the alleged losses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Guertin may be contacted at

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    October 09, 2018 —
    The appellate court reversed a jury verdict for the insured due to improper trial tactics by his attorney. Homeowners Choice Property and Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Kuwas, 2018 Fla. Ct. App. LEXIS 9500 (Fla. Ct. App. July 5, 2018). The insured sued Homeowners Choice (HCI) alleging breach of contract due to a denial of coverage for property damage as a result of water loss. During the trial, HCI raised objections to various questions posed by the insured's counsel during the testimony of HCI's litigation manager, as well as various closing arguments made by the insured. The jury entered a verdict for the insured for a substantial sum. HCI appealed. 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

    Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations

    November 28, 2018 —
    The Washington State Supreme Court dealt another blow to public works contractors in Washington State. In a case recently issued by the court, Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, [1] the court expanded contractors’ obligations when providing notice on public works construction projects. The Nova Contracting case was the subject of a previous blog. The case involved Nova Contracting and the City of Olympia. Nova was the low bidder on the contract. Nova alleged that the City of Olympia did not want Nova to win the job and intentionally hindered Nova’s ability to perform the job. The facts alleged by Nova, which were covered in the previous blog, involved the City’s improper and apparently punitive rejection of submittals on the job and the City’s eventual wrongful termination of Nova. Of significance in the case is that Nova never actually began work on the job. All that Nova had done at the time of termination was begin mobilizing its equipment on site. The Court of Appeals found that Nova had alleged sufficient facts to establish that the City violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing by improperly rejecting Nova’s submissions and had breached the contract with Nova by improperly terminating. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at