BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia reconstruction expert witnessAshburn Virginia testifying construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia architecture expert witnessAshburn Virginia stucco expert witnessAshburn Virginia contractor expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction project management 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


    Minneapolis Condo Shortage Blamed on Construction Defect Law

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

    Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

    Construction Employment Rose in 38 States from 2013 to 2014

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions

    School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?

    New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

    Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

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

    Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

    Construction Defects and Second Buyers in Pennsylvania

    Reports of the Death of SB800 are Greatly Exaggerated – The Court of Appeal Revives Mandatory SB800 Procedures

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Sales of Existing U.S. Homes Unexpectedly Fell in January

    New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case

    Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

    Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened

    Ex-Pemex CEO Denies Allegations of Involvement in Brazil Scandal

    No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

    Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says

    Florida Property Bill Passes Economic Affairs Committee with Amendments

    Single-Family Home Gain Brightens U.S. Housing Outlook: Economy

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    At $350 Million, Beverly Hillbillies Mansion Is Most Expensive in U.S.

    Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Construction Expert Witness 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 Ashburn'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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    March 14, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Ctr. For Excellence in Higher Ed., Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25424 (D. Col. Feb. 16, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado had occasion to consider whether a breach of contract claim could qualify for coverage under a general liability policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    January 10, 2018 —

    While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com


    2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community

    January 24, 2018 —
    Last March, the Colorado General Assembly introduced House Bill 17-1279 concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action. The bill, passed in May, requires a home owners’ association to first notify all unit owners and the developer or builder of a potential construction defect action, call a meeting where both the HOA and developer or builder have an opportunity to present arguments and potentially remedy the defect, and obtain a majority vote of approval from the unit owners to pursue a lawsuit before bringing a construction defect action against a developer or builder. The bill amends C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, which previously only required substantial compliance with the above-mentioned actions. Moreover, the previous version of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 did not require the HOA to perform these actions prior to a suit being filed. HB 17-1279 also removed the provision of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 that made it only applicable to buildings of five or more units. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kaitlin Marsh-Blake, Gordon & Rees
    Ms. Marsh-Blake may be contacted at kmarsh-blake@grsm.com

    NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

    February 28, 2018 —
    In a potentially significant development in New York insurance law, a recent appellate level decision held that an excess liability policy was not obligated to provide coverage where the underlying employer’s liability policy provided unlimited coverage pursuant to New York regulations. The Arthur Vincent & Sons Construction, Inc. v. Century Surety Insurance Co.1 case arose out of an underlying wrongful death claim. Fordham University hired Arthur Vincent and Sons Construction, Inc. (“AVSC”) to install a new roof on its Lewis Calder Center. As is typical of most construction contracts, AVSC agreed to indemnify the University against any claims arising out of its negligence, and to name the University as an additional insured on its commercial general liability policy. AVSC was insured by three policies: (1) a worker’s compensation and employer’s liability policy issued by Commerce and Industry Insur¬ance Company (“CIIC”); (2) a primary CGL policy issued by Century Surety Insurance Company (“Century”); and (3) an excess liability policy issued by Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”). Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    May 16, 2018 —
    In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Edinburg School Inspections Uncovered Structural Construction Defects

    April 11, 2018 —
    Yesterday, the Herald reported that six schools and a nursery have been affected by construction defects in Edinburg. For every eight properties inspected by council, one was found to share analogous issues which caused “a wall to collapse at a city primary school in 2016.” Furthermore, over the course of eighteen months, inspectors will observe more buildings across Edinburg in order to guarantee their “structural safety.” At Oxgangs Primary School, during Storm Gertrude in January 2016, nine tons of masonry fell from the side of a building. The Herald reported 17 other schools across Edinburg closed due to safety concerns. All schools closed were part of the “same private finance initiative.” Moreover, there have been 20 other examples of defects found that are alike, in which checks were “carried out at public buildings.” Christine Jardine, a Scottish Liberal democrat who represents Edinburg West, states that the findings were “scandalous,” and “simply not good enough.” In addition, Jardine points out that the council is responsible for buildings to meet the highest of standards, and proper checks are necessary, in order to ensure the safety of their children. Lastly, Jardine suggests that the Scottish government should no longer rely on the funding from local authority. Instead, she proposes that the government must be accountable for “improving council funding.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    March 22, 2018 —

    A lienor needs to record its construction lien within 90 days of its final furnishing date. This final furnishing date excludes punchlist, warranty, or the lienor’s own corrective work. A lien recorded outside of the 90-day window will be deemed invalid.

    The opinion in In re: Jennerwein, 309 B.R. 385 (M.D. Fla. 2004) provides a good discussion of this 90-day window. This matter dealt with a debtor / owner’s bankruptcy where the owner was contesting the validity of a construction lien by its pool contractor. The owner contended that the lienor’s lien was recorded outside of this 90-day window thus rendering the lien invalid. The bankruptcy court was determining the validity of the lien.

    In this matter, the owner hired a swimming pool contractor to construct a pool. On October 25, 2002, the pool contractor installed pavers around the pool. After this was performed, the pool contractor realized the owner was unable to obtain the financing to pay for the pool. As a result, the pool contractor ceased doing any more improvements. But, neither the pool contractor nor the owner terminated the contract. Then, on November 27, 2002, the pool contractor sent a supervisor to the property to inspect the pool (work-in-place), the pool equipment, the installed pavers, made a list of the unfinished work, and remove any debris. On January 27, 2003, the pool contractor recorded its lien.

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington

    March 28, 2018 —
    As previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine. Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file. Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018) The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Neal Philip, Gordon, Reese, Scully, & Mansukhani
    Mr. Philip may be contacted at nphilip@grsm.com