• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia stucco expert witnessAshburn Virginia forensic architectAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia slope failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness concrete failureAshburn Virginia civil engineer expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witnesses fenestration
    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

    Coverage for Construction Defect Barred by Contractual-Liability Exclusion

    U.S. Architecture Firms’ Billing Index Faster in Dec.

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin

    Following My Own Advice

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Dispute Over Exhaustion of Primary Policy

    Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th

    Unit Owners Have No Standing to Sue under Condominium Association’s Policy

    Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Trial Date Discussed for Las Vegas HOA Takeover Case

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    In Colorado, Primary Insurers are Necessary Parties in Declaratory Judgment Actions

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Court of Appeals Invalidates Lien under Dormancy Clause

    Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    Visual Construction Diaries – Interview with Jeff Sassinsky of Fovea Aero

    I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

    Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

    As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    Follow Up on Continental Western v. Shay Construction

    Sobering Facts for Construction Safety Day

    Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

    Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

    Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

    Factual Issues Prevent Summary Judgment Determination on Coverage for Additional Insured

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    Melissa Pang Elected Vice President of APABA-PA Board of Directors

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower
    Corporate Profile


    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

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    February 23, 2017 —
    The additional insured unsuccessfully sought to recover damages to its building caused by the named insured. Brit UW, Ltd. v. Tripar, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2462 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2017). Davis Russell Real Estate and Management LLC hired Tripar, Inc., a general contractor, to renovate a 12-unit apartment building. The entire roof was to be replaced by a roofing subcontractor. Davis Russell drafted a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) that governed the project. Tripar was to obtain a CGL policy and provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the coverage. Davis Russell was to be named as an additional insured. Tripar's insurance broker prepared a certificate of insurance reflecting that a CGL policy was issued to Tripar by Brit UW, Ltd. But the certificate clearly stated that it was not issued by the insurer and that it did not alter coverage. The certificate of insurance further stated that it conferred no rights upon the holder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Indicted Union Representatives Try Again to Revive Enmons

    June 22, 2016 —
    The Boston Globe reports that the Massachusetts AFL-CIO has filed a friend of the court brief seeking to have the indictment of five members of the Teamsters Union in Boston dismissed. The Teamsters members are facing federal charges that they extorted non-union contractors and owners that employed non-union contractors. The Massachusetts AFL-CIO is arguing that under the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in U.S. v. Enmons the Teamsters alleged conduct was in furtherance of a legitimate union objective and, therefore, no illegal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Supplemental Conditions
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    November 27, 2013 —
    After storms damaged homes in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, the state’s Attorney General, warned consumers “to be cautious and on alert for scammers trying to take advantage of people in need of assistance.” Ms. Madigan noted that home repair scammers go into areas with storm damage convince homeowners to pay more than they should to repair storm damage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    March 16, 2017 —
    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – FEBRUARY 7, 2017 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that three of the firm’s attorneys – Ben Ammerman, Anne Kelley and Rondi Walsh – have been elected to partnership. Their promotions are effective immediately. “The elevation of these three attorneys is a testament to their leadership, hard work, and unwavering commitment to superior service for our clients and the firm,” proclaimed Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner. “This is an exciting time for the firm as we look forward to their continued success and contributions.” Ammerman (based in Newport Beach, CA) focuses his practice in the areas of business, real estate, and tort litigation. In addition to his private practice, Ammerman presently serves as a Commander in the Navy Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He's also an active alumnus, currently named co-chair of the University of Southern California’s 20th Reunion Committee. Kelley (based in Walnut Creek, CA) concentrates primarily in construction litigation and insurance coverage matters. She has over 12 years of experience working closely with builders, developers, contractors and subcontractors throughout Northern California developing legal strategies specific to the needs of each matter and the client’s business and goals. Kelley has litigated a wide variety of complex insurance coverage disputes. Walsh (based in Newport Beach, CA) has incorporated into her practice the representation of policyholders in first and third-party insurance coverage, and business lawsuits involving contracts, property disputes, products liability and construction defect issues. She also has litigated numerous political and election law matters and has worked both professionally and as a volunteer on numerous political campaigns. Walsh is also an active member with the National Charity League. About Newmeyer & Dillion 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 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    July 23, 2014 —
    According to Willits News, slow-moving trucks with cameras attached rolled through Fort Briggs, attracting attention from homeowners in the community. People began mentioning the trucks on social media sites, with questions regarding what the cameras on the trucks were recording. Osmose Utilities General Manager, Jason Milligan, told Willits News that the trucks were “surveying overhead power poles and lines for PG&E.” "We're not looking for anything but what's overhead," Mulligan said, according to Willits News. "We find defects or issues with construction ... 20 or 30 feet off the ground, which are safety issues. We don't scan anything down towards people's homes." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims

    May 20, 2015 —
    According to NJ, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be sending 141,800 letters to homeowners offering to review their Hurricane Sandy claims to see if the homeowners had been shortchanged. Homeowners who do not wish to wait for their letter can call 866-337-4262 or download a form online, reported NJ. If after the initial FEMA review the homeowner remains unsatisfied, he or she can request an additional review by an independent party. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    April 20, 2011 —

    The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.

    After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”

    “In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”

    Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:

    [1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.

    [a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.

    [b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.

    [2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.

    [3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.

    [4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.

    In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”

    The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”

    The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.

    The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”

    James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:

    “The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.

    In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”

    The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.

    Read the full story...

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Dusseldorf Evacuates About 4,000 as World War II Bomb Defused

    August 20, 2014 —
    Emergency services in the northern German city of Dusseldorf are preparing to evacuate more than 4,000 people, including residents of a retirement home, as work gets under way to disarm a World War II bomb discovered during construction work yesterday. A further 15,000 people, living within a 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) radius of the site, are being asked to stay indoors and keep away from windows, authorities said in a press release published on its website. The disposal is scheduled for 4 p.m. Roads in the vicinity are expected to remain closed until at least 5 p.m. The 500-kilogram (1,100 pound) U.S. aircraft bomb was unearthed on the site of the former Reitzenstein army barracks, which is being redeveloped as a residential area. It’s the fourth or fifth find since last year in the northeastern district of Moersenbroich, where new apartment buildings and houses are under construction, Tobias Schuelpen, a press spokesman for the local fire service, said by phone. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dorothee Tschampa, Bloomberg
    Ms. Tschampa may be contacted at