BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia expert witness concrete failureAshburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness roofingAshburn Virginia testifying construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia building envelope expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessesAshburn Virginia architecture 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


    Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

    Colorado’s Three-Bill Approach to Alleged Construction Defect Issues

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

    Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts

    Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

    Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorney Casey Quinn Selected to the 2017 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars List

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Tesla Powerwalls for Home Energy Storage Hit U.S. Market

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

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

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

    What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

    Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre

    Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint

    Nevada Budget Remains at Impasse over Construction Defect Law

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

    Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

    The “Your Work” Exclusion—Is there a Trend against Coverage?

    The Ever-Growing Thicket Of California Civil Code Section 2782

    Green Home Predictions That Are Best Poised to Come True in 2014 and Beyond (guest post)

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand
    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

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    March 14, 2018 —
    Unfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense. In Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage. After the Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense. The key issue before the Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued. In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid. While Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs. Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later. Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com. Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com. ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP For more than 30 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 business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, 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 www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

    March 28, 2018 —
    As the Engineer or Architect of Record, you probably have frequently experienced Owners and Contractors communicating directly, in direct contravention of the language of the contract that requires them to endeavor to route all communications through the design team. With the latest version of the 201, direct communication is now authorized, to recognize both the reality of what was happening on the ground and to recognize that sometimes Owners and Contractors may need to communicate without waiting for the design team. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    February 15, 2018 —
    Gonzalez v. Mathis, 2018 WL 718528 confirms the difficulties a defendant will face when trying to overcome the Kinsman exception to the Privette doctrine on a dispositive motion when dealing with an open and obvious hazard. There, a professional window washer fell off a roof while walking along a parapet wall constructed by the owner of a home. The window washer filed suit against the homeowner and alleged three dangerous conditions on the roof: (1) the parapet wall forced those who needed to access a skylight to walk along an exposed two-foot ledge that lacked a safety railing; (2) dilapidated and slippery roof shingles; and (3) the lack of tie off points that would allow maintenance workers to secure themselves with ropes or harnesses. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny which prohibits an independent contractor from suing his or her hirer for workplace injuries (“Privette doctrine”). There are two exceptions to the Privette doctrine. First, a hirer cannot avoid liability when he or she exercises control over the manner and means in which a contractor does his or her work and that control contributes to the injuries sustained – known as the “Hooker exception” (premised on the holding of Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198). Second, a hirer may be found liable if he or she fails to warn the contractor of a concealed hazard on the premises – known as the “Kinsman exception” (premised on the holding of Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)). Reprinted courtesy of Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Get Caught Holding the Bag: Hold the State Liable When General Contractor Fails to Pay on a Public Project.

    January 31, 2018 —
    According to a quick Google search the term “holding the bag” comes from the mid eighteenth century and means be left with the onus of what was originally another’s responsibility. Nobody wants to be left holding the bag. But that is the situation our client (subcontractor) found themselves in when upon completion of a public project the general contractor went out of business before paying the remaining amount due and owing to our client. Under Nebraska law, liens are not allowed against public projects. Instead the subcontractor is to make a claim on the payment and performance bond secured by the general contractor at the start of the project. In our case, the general contractor never secured a bond on which to make a claim; consequently, leaving our client holding the bag. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Minaham, Lamson, Dugan and Murrary, LLP
    Mr. Minahan may be contacted at sminahan@ldmlaw.com

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    March 22, 2018 —

    The Florida District Court reversed erroneous jury instructions that adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine in determining whether the insurer was responsible for the insureds’ collapsed roof. Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 561 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

    The insureds filed a claim for their damaged roof, contending that the damage was caused by a hailstorm. Federal National Insurance Company denied the claim based upon exclusions for “wear and tear, marring, deterioration;” “faulty, inadequate or defective design;” “neglect;” “existing damage;” or “weather conditions.”

    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

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    April 11, 2018 —
    To understand what Toxic Mold Litigation is, it is important to first identify and understand what toxic mold is. Mold is a fungus which is essentially everywhere, and certain types of mold, known as toxic mold, may cause severe personal injuries and/or property damage. Toxic mold refers to those molds capable of producing mycotoxins which are organic compounds capable of initiating a toxic response in vertebrates. Toxic mold generally occurs because of water intrusion, from sources such as plumbing problems, floods, or roof leaks. It is this ageless life form that has spawned a new species of toxic tort claims and has had legal and medical experts debating the complex health implications that follow. Here is some information as to what toxic mold litigation is and when you should hire a lawyer for toxic mold. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Vik Nagpal
    Mr. Nagpal may be contacted at vnagpal@bremerwhyte.com

    2018 California Construction Law Update

    January 10, 2018 —
    The California State Legislature introduced 2,495 bills during the first year of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 859 were signed into law. While much political attention was focused on several California laws that could be viewed as California’s rebuke of Washington, including California’s legalization of marijuana, enactment of “sanctuary state” legislation, and bills focused on climate change, 2017 also saw the enactment of a package of bills intended to address the state’s housing affordability crises (for a great summary of these bills see Wendel Rosen’s Landuse Group’s recent article Slate of New Housing Bills Takes Effect January 1, 2018 ), as well as a range of other bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related construction financing, alternative project delivery methods, and solar construction. Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. 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

    Ninth Circuit Upholds Corps’ Issuance of CWA Section 404 Permit for Newhall Ranch Project Near Santa Clarita, CA

    April 11, 2018 —
    On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, rejected the challenges to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) decision to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall), which is planning a large residential and commercial project in Los Angeles County near Santa Clarita, CA (the Newhall Ranch project). The Newhall Ranch project, which involves the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the Santa Clara River, has been scaled back and modified, and the Ninth Circuit held that it is consistent with the CWA, the Corps’ regulations and procedures, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Ninth Circuit provides an excellent primer on the Section 404 permitting process. The case is Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com