• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    casino resort Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington production housing Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington condominium Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington institutional building Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington hospital construction Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington industrial building Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington housing Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington retail construction Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington Medical building Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington parking structure Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington office building Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington high-rise construction Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington Subterranean parking Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington landscaping construction Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington tract home Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington structural steel construction Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington condominiums Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington mid-rise construction Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington low-income housing Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington custom home Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington custom homes Building Consultant Bainbridge Island Washington
    Bainbridge Island Washington construction safety expertBainbridge Island Washington ada design expert witnessBainbridge Island Washington engineering consultantBainbridge Island Washington construction claims expert witnessBainbridge Island Washington expert witness windowsBainbridge Island Washington hospital construction expert witnessBainbridge Island Washington building consultant expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Bainbridge Island, 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 Bainbridge Island 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
    Home Builders Association of Spokane
    Local # 4966
    5813 E 4th Ave Ste 201
    Spokane, WA 99212

    Bainbridge Island Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    MBuilders Association of King & Snohomish Counties
    Local # 4955
    335 116th Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98004

    Bainbridge Island Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Bainbridge Island Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Bainbridge Island Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

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

    Bainbridge Island Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Bainbridge Island Washington Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Bainbridge Island Washington

    25 Days After Explosion, Another Utility Shuts Off Gas in Boston Area

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders

    CA Court of Appeal Reinstates Class Action Construction Defect Claims Against Homebuilder

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

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

    Exception to Watercraft Exclusion Does Not Apply

    Red Wings Owner, Needing Hockey-Arena Neighborhood, Builds One

    Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

    Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    Elizabeth Lofts Condo Owners Settle with Plumbing Supplier

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

    What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    County Officials Refute Resident’s Statement that Defect Repairs Improper

    Resurgent Housing Seen Cushioning U.S. From World Woes: Economy

    Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

    Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law

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

    Oregon to Add 258,000 Jobs by 2022, State Data Shows

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

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

    No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

    U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014

    California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures

    Technology and the Environment Lead Construction Trends That Will Continue Through 2019

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics
    Corporate Profile


    The Bainbridge Island, Washington Building Consultant Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Bainbridge Island, Washington

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    May 06, 2019 —
    It’s one of the most quoted phrases in legal history: “Shouting fire in a [crowded] theater.” It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1919 decision in Schenck v. U.S. and has come to stand for the proposition that not all speech, in particular dangerous speech, is protected by the First Amendment. The next case also involves a false alarm. But not of the First Amendment kind. In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B281411 (March 8, 2019), a false alarm investigated by maintenance engineering staff led to a Privette Doctrine claim against a property owner when a ladder on which the maintenance staff was standing slipped on wet flooring. Johnson v. Raytheon Lawrence Johnson worked as a maintenance engineer for ABM Facilities Services, Inc. ABM was hired by Raytheon Company, Inc. to staff the control room at one of Raytheon’s facilities in Southern California. Among other things, control room staff monitored water cooling towers owned by Raytheon to ensure that the water in the cooling towers were maintained at minimum levels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

    April 22, 2019 —
    In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    May 27, 2019 —
    A Toronto area contractor at the center of a series of delays to major projects in Ontario, including a $139-million hospital expansion, has won court protection from its creditors. The Ontario Superior Court earlier this month granted Bondfield Construction Co.’s application for protection, court records show. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    June 18, 2019 —
    Ordinance 52-19 became effective in April 2019 and expands upon existing San Francisco Building Code registration requirements for “Vacant or Abandoned” “Commercial Storefronts.” A storefront becomes “Vacant or Abandoned” once it has been unoccupied for 30 days (among other earlier triggers for blighted or unsecured storefronts). A “Commercial Storefront” is broadly defined as “any area within a building that may be individually leased or rented for any purpose other than Residential Use as defined in Planning Code.” (See § 103.A.5.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.) So, a building that is 97% leased could still contain a Vacant or Abandoned Commercial Storefront, which would technically require registration under the Building Code. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury
    Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at

    Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions

    July 29, 2019 —
    A Finnish experimentation project developed a framework for classifying ground conditions for building and infrastructure construction. It will help anticipate the future cost of foundation laying during the early stages of city planning. The ground conditions of an area can have a substantial effect on the costs and the environmental impacts of constructing buildings and infrastructure. At early stage, urban designers don’t typically have enough data to make smart decisions about zoning in that respect as obtaining that data is time-consuming and hence also costly. Consequently, an experimentation project called MAKU-digi: Making the costs of land use visible devised a method for automating the analysis of ground conditions. I had the pleasure of interviewing Juha Liukas, Lead Advisor at Sitowise, and Hilkka Kallio, Geologist at Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), about the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    Limiting Liability: Three Clauses to Consider in your Next Construction Contract

    June 25, 2019 —
    In your next contract, consider including some (or all!) of the following clauses to limit your liability and maximize your profits. Waiver of Consequential Damages While a proven breach of contract will leave a design professional or contractor exposed to direct or compensatory damages, a waiver of consequential damages will help “stop the bleeding” and protect the design professional or contractor from paying every damage that might flow from the breach. Consequential damages include those damages which indirectly flow from the breach of contract, for example, lost rents, lost profits, lost use, lost opportunity, loss of employee productivity, and damages to reputation. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has included a mutual waiver of consequential damages in its sample A201 for over 20 years. The AIA provision includes a definition of consequential damages which are waived, including many of the examples cited above. However, the AIA waiver of consequential damages clause carves out an exception for liquidated damages to the owner. Prudent design professionals and contractors will strike this exception so as not to render the clause meaningless. A well-drafted waiver clause will be mutual, will define which damages are consequential versus direct, and will not contain exceptions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tara Lynch - Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Lynch may be contacted at

    Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

    June 25, 2019 —
    It is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities. A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion. Reprinted courtesy of John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at Mr. Morris may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

    May 27, 2019 —
    Subrogating insurers often address waiver of subrogation clauses in the form contracts drafted by the American Institute of Architects. In ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Am. Med. Plumbing, No. A-5395-16T4, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 45 (App. Div.), ACE American Insurance Company (ACE) argued that the waiver clause in the AIA General Conditions form A201-2007 did not extend to the post-construction loss at issue. Adopting what the court termed the “majority” position, the Appellate Division held that, by reading §§ 11.3.5 and 11.3.7 together, the waiver applied to bar the insurer’s subrogation claim. The Appellate Court’s ruling makes pursuing subrogation against New Jersey contractors using AIA contract forms more difficult. In this matter, Equinox Development Corporation (Equinox Development), ACE’s insured, contracted with Grace Construction Management Company, LLC (Grace Construction) to build the “core and shell” of a new health club (the Work). Grace Construction subcontracted the plumbing work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (AM Plumbing). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at