BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia building expertAshburn Virginia building code expert witnessAshburn Virginia engineering consultantAshburn Virginia defective construction expertAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert testimonyAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Virginia Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: (HB558; H 150; §55-70.1) Warranty extension applicable to single-family but not HOAs: in addition to any other express or implied warranties; It requires registered or certified mail notice to "vendor" stating nature of claim; reasonable time not to exceed six months to "cure the defect".


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Ashburn Virginia

    A contractor's license is required for all trades. Separate boards license plumbing, electrical, HVAC, gas fitting, and asbestos trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Northern Virginia Building Industry Association
    Local # 4840
    3901 Centerview Dr Suite E
    Chantilly, VA 20151

    Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    The Top of Virginia Builders Association
    Local # 4883
    1182 Martinsburg Pike
    Winchester, VA 22603

    Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Shenandoah Valley Builders Association
    Local # 4848
    PO Box 1286
    Harrisonburg, VA 22803

    Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Piedmont Virginia Building Industry Association
    Local # 4890
    PO Box 897
    Culpeper, VA 22701

    Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Fredericksburg Area Builders Association
    Local # 4830
    3006 Lafayette Blvd
    Fredericksburg, VA 22408

    Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Augusta Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 4804
    PO Box 36
    Waynesboro, VA 22980

    Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
    Local # 4809
    PO Box 7743
    Charlottesville, VA 22906

    Ashburn Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Ashburn Virginia


    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    L.A. Mixes Grit With Glitz in Downtown Revamp: Cities

    That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water

    UConn’s Law-School Library Construction Case Settled for Millions

    Building and Landscape Standards Enacted in Response to the Governor's Mandatory Water Restrictions Dealing with the Drought and Possible Effects of El Niño

    Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

    Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    How to Survive the Insurance Claim Process Before It Starts –Five Tips to Keep Your Insurance Healthy

    Is the Sky Actually Falling (on Green Building)?

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

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

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    SIG Earnings Advance 21% as U.K. Construction Strengthens

    Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

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

    Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

    Hawaii State Senate Requires CGL Carriers to Submit Premium Information To State Legislature

    Spotting Problem Projects

    Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

    Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute

    Housing Buoyed by 20-Year High for Vet’s Loans: Mortgages

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    AIA Releases Decennial 2017 Updates to its Contracts Suites

    The Best Lawyers in America© Peer Review Names Eight Newmeyer & Dillion Partners in Multiple Categories and Two Partners as Orange County’s Lawyers of the Year in Construction and Insurance Law

    Home Prices Expected to Increase All Over the U.S.

    Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth

    Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine

    Gilroy Homeowners Sue over Leaky Homes
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Construction Expert Witness 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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    February 07, 2018 —
    In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

    February 28, 2018 —
    The Eleventh Circuit, in Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc., No. 17-12660, 2018 WL 834896, at * 3-4 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018) (per curiam), recently held under Florida law that a homebuilder’s alleged failure to implement a proper drainage system that allowed for neighborhood flooding triggered a general liability insurer’s duty to defend because the allegations involved a potentially covered loss of use of covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Katherine E. Miller, Hunton & Williams and Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams Ms. Miller may be contacted at kmiller@hunton.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

    January 24, 2018 —
    On December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams

    California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

    June 06, 2018 —
    It’s been a rollercoaster. But the ride appears to be over. In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., Case No. S231549 (May 14, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a direct contractor can withhold payment from a subcontractor based on the “good faith dispute” exception of the state’s prompt payment laws if the “dispute” concerns any dispute between the parties or whether the dispute must be directly relevant to the specific payment that would otherwise be due. California’s Prompt Payment Laws California has a number of construction-related prompt payment laws scattered throughout the state’s Civil Code, Public Contracts Code and Business and Professions Code. Their application depends on the type of construction involved, whether public or private; the type of payment involved, whether a progress payment or retention; and who is paying, whether it’s a private owner, public entity, direct contractor, or subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    February 07, 2018 —
    After the collapse of the Viking’s previous stadium due to snow in 2010, it was clear that a new facility was needed to endure the Minnesota weather. The new U.S. Bank Stadium was built to withstand the harshest of weather conditions while also saving energy according to Marlene Cimons’ article “Cutting-Edge Design on Display at Super Bowl LII” featured on Nexus Media website. The stadium’s roof melts snow quickly by deflecting sunlight and because of its sharp pitch the snow slides easily into a big gutter. The roof also lets in sunlight which saves electricity and creates the feeling of being outdoors. Solar heating is used to recirculate warm air from above down to spectators below. “It is also the first NFL stadium to be built with LED lighting, which uses 75 percent less electricity than metal halide lighting typically deployed in stadiums.” The stadium is dedicated to becoming a zero-waste facility and currently saves water by using low-flow faucets. Sport and Sustainability chairman Allen Hershkowitz said of the stadium, “as one of the most visible sporting events in the world, the Super Bowl has a unique opportunity to promote environmental literacy and reduce cultural polarization related to climate change.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Administration Seeks To Build New FBI HQ on Current D.C. Site

    February 28, 2018 —
    A Senate committee plans to examine a new $3.3-billion Trump administration proposal to demolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worn, outmoded headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., and construct a new facility on that site. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

    June 06, 2018 —
    The state of Pennsylvania continues to try to recover funds from professional firms involved in the city of Harrisburg’s disastrous incinerator project in the early 2000’s and has named, Buchart Horn, Inc., an engineering, architecture and planning firm based in York, Pa. as a defendant. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Barnes, ENR
    ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    July 02, 2018 —
    In a 5 to 4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled a longstanding decision which required government employees who are represented by but do not belong to a union, to pay a fair share or agency fee to cover the union's costs for collective bargaining activities. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court found that requiring such fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment: "[n]either an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion and Eric C. Sohlgren Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of