• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home expert witness Seattle Washington landscaping construction expert witness Seattle Washington retail construction expert witness Seattle Washington mid-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington townhome construction expert witness Seattle Washington industrial building expert witness Seattle Washington low-income housing expert witness Seattle Washington hospital construction expert witness Seattle Washington parking structure expert witness Seattle Washington concrete tilt-up expert witness Seattle Washington office building expert witness Seattle Washington high-rise construction expert witness Seattle Washington condominiums expert witness Seattle Washington casino resort expert witness Seattle Washington structural steel construction expert witness Seattle Washington Medical building expert witness Seattle Washington housing expert witness Seattle Washington production housing expert witness Seattle Washington multi family housing expert witness Seattle Washington custom homes expert witness Seattle Washington custom home expert witness Seattle Washington institutional building expert witness Seattle Washington
    Seattle Washington construction expertsSeattle Washington window expert witnessSeattle Washington construction expert testimonySeattle Washington construction expert witness public projectsSeattle Washington roofing and waterproofing expert witnessSeattle Washington building consultant expertSeattle Washington architecture expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness 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.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Seattle Washington

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

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    North Peninsula Builders Association
    Local # 4927
    PO Box 748
    Port Angeles, WA 98362
    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Seattle Washington Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Seattle Washington

    “Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

    Reminder: Your Accounting and Other Records Matter

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    Thank You for 14 Consecutive Years of Legal Elite Elections

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

    What Are The Most Commonly Claimed Issues In Construction Defect Litigation?

    Construction Costs Up

    Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors

    Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures

    Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    Governor Murphy Approves Legislation Implementing Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey

    Learning from Production Homes of the Past

    Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

    Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Pensacola Bridge Halted Due to Alleged Construction Defects

    Meet Some Key Players in 2020 Environmental Litigation

    COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

    One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

    Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Contractor Licensing Ruling

    U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016

    Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

    New York Court Holds Radioactive Materials Exclusion Precludes E&O Coverage for Negligent Phase I Report

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

    No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Appeals Court Overruled Insured as Additional Insured on Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Seattle, Washington Construction Expert Witness 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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Seattle, Washington

    Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

    December 21, 2020 —
    Mediation took the construction industry by storm in the late 1980’s and has become a staple for resolving construction claims. Today, most construction contracts, including the ConsensusDocs, require mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution, whether it be arbitration or litigation. As a result, many construction executives have spent long hours sitting in conference rooms trying to reach resolution with their counterpart through mediation in order to avoid the alternative – costly arbitration or litigation that often produces an unsatisfactory result. While many businesses have foreclosed the possibility of meeting in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the contractual requirements for mediation remain. Thus, in most cases, in-person or live mediation is no longer an option; however, attorneys and mediators have developed a virtual process to replace the live process. With a new process comes many questions: Does the virtual process work? What are the best practices and pitfalls for virtual mediation? Will virtual mediation continue when COVID-19 fades away? How do I make virtual mediation work for me? The answers to these questions and more are discussed below. Reprinted courtesy of Adrian L. Bastianelli, III, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Bastianelli may be contacted at Ms. Harris may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

    February 01, 2021 —
    A South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems. As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Fehling may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    January 25, 2021 —
    In prior articles I have discussed that courts apply the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. A party that recovers an affirmative judgement is NOT the de facto prevailing party for purposes of an entitlement to attorney’s fees in a breach of contract action (or a construction lien foreclosure action). This was the issue in a recent appeal discussed here where the party that recovered an affirmative judgment on a breach of contract case was not deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. While the party prevailed on one of its claims, it did not prevail on others, and it recovered less than half of the damages it originally sought. The appellate court, affirming the trial court, held that the trial court has discretion to determine that the party that recovered an affirmative judgement was not the prevailing party entitled to its attorney’s fees under the signifiant issues test. This was not what the party was expecting when the attorney’s fees it expended far exceeded the judgment it recovered. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

    November 23, 2020 —
    In RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court properly granted an anti-SLAPP motion because the recording of a mechanic’s lien is protected by the litigation privilege. In RGC Gaslamp, subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (“Ehmcke”) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation done at a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (“RGC”) recorded a release bond for the lien. Thereafter, Ehmcke recorded three successive mechanic’s liens identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. After retaining California counsel, Ehmcke then released its liens and advised it did not intend to record any more. Ehmcke then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.) which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at Mr. Zucker may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

    March 29, 2021 —
    Although it’s been a tough twelve months for many live music venues, movie theaters, and performing arts organizations, help may finally be around the corner. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act was signed into law, creating a $15 billion fund for grants to shuttered venues to be administered by the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Disaster Assistance. The law states that Shuttered Venues Operator Grants (“SVOGs”) will be made available to the following entities and individuals:
    1. Live venue operators or promoters;
    2. Theatrical producers;
    3. Live performing arts organization operators;
    4. Relevant museum operators, zoos, and aquariums which meet specific criteria;
    5. Movie theater operators;
    6. Talent representatives; and
    7. Each business entity owned by an eligible entity that also meets the eligibility requirements.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Rao, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Rao may be contacted at

    2021 Real Estate Trends: New Year, New Reality—A Day of Reckoning for Borrowers and Tenants

    February 08, 2021 —
    On the one-year anniversary of China’s Wuhan lockdown, COVID-19 has become a part of everyday life and as we enter the new year, real estate borrowers and lenders alike will need to understand this new normal and face the reality that is fast approaching. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the United States, many state and local governments instituted eviction moratoria and other protections for real estate tenants and borrowers. These protections created a window of opportunity for tenants and borrowers to negotiate reasonable solutions with their respective landlords and lenders regarding rent and debt payments amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This temporary period of restricted remedies also allowed courts to analyze legal arguments on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacts the real estate industry. However, with court rulings forthcoming and many of these eviction protections set to expire in 2021, landlords and tenants as well as borrowers and lenders will be forced to have discussions regarding the realities of their industry and their ability to pay their respective rents and mortgages amid the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Throughout 2020, lenders and landlords were forced to accommodate workout negotiations as their ability to evict or foreclose upon defaulting tenants or borrowers was prohibited. Many commercial real estate parties were able to come to agreements on what borrowers and tenants were able to pay, given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their respective industries. As the legal protections are rolled back and the leverage shifts back into the hands of the lenders and landlords, we will likely see a trend of aggressive landlords and lenders and an increased number of evictions and foreclosures, especially in industries that are most vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic: retail and hospitality. Reprinted courtesy of Robert J. Grados, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Grados may be contacted at Mr. Weaver may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

    March 08, 2021 —
    In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost. The Oetiker Case James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded, in 2004. In 2016, the Philsons tendered a claim to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company, after their home experienced significant water damage due to a defective stainless steel ear clamp. In 2018, after paying the Philson’s claim, State Farm filed a subrogation action against the manufacturer of the ear clamp, Oetiker, Inc. State Farm’s complaint, which included causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, alleged that the home was “damaged by a water leak from the failure of a defective stainless steel ear claim on a water PEX fitting” and that the ear clamp was “defective when it left the control of [Oetiker].” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

    April 12, 2021 —
    In a previous article, I discussed a subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against a project’s owner and the death of this equitable claim if the owner fully paid the general contractor or paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work. This can be best summarized from a very short 1995 opinion out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal: “Unjust enrichment is equitable in nature and cannot exist where payment has been made for the benefit conferred. [Owner] paid [General Contractor] the full amount of its contract for the construction project. Accordingly, there can be no unjust enrichment claim to support [Subcontractor’s] claim.” Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Sunshine Ready Concrete Co., Inc., 651 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of