• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia ada design expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert testimonyAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting general contractorAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessesAshburn Virginia expert witness concrete failureAshburn Virginia window 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

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

    Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052 Dies in Committee

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose

    New York Nonprofit Starts Anti-Scaffold Law Video Series

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

    Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson

    Insurance Tips for Contractors

    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

    Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games

    Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Shares Fall on Wind-Down Measure

    Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

    Sales of U.S. New Homes Decline After Record May Revision

    Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

    Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward

    Which Cities have the Most Affordable Homes?

    No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

    Housing Affordability Down

    In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

    Reminder: Always Order a Title Search for Your Mechanic’s Lien

    Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station

    Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?

    In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Production of Pre-Denial Claim File Compelled

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Architectural Firm, Fired by School District, Launches Lawsuit

    Construction Defect Journal Seeks Article Submissions Regarding SB800 and Other Builders Right to Repair Laws
    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

    Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats

    January 04, 2018 —
    Many clients and friends have inquired about accelerating the payment of their 2018 real property taxes as a result of the recent enactment of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Pursuant to that Act, the deduction for state and local income, real property and other taxes will be capped at $10,000 in tax years 2018 through 2025. The Act, moreover, specifically disallows a deduction in 2017 for 2018 state and local income taxes that are prepaid before year-end. The Act was not clear on whether a prepayment of 2018 real property taxes would be deductible in 2017. For certain taxpayers that are not subject to the alternative minimum tax, a prepayment of those 2018 real property taxes might be of current benefit to them. Yesterday, the IRS issued an advisory to taxpayers outlining which real property tax prepayments will be deductible in 2017 and which are not. The text of that advisory, together with the illustrative examples, is set out below for your consideration. IR-2017-210, DEC. 27, 2017 WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service advised tax professionals and taxpayers today that pre-paying 2018 state and local real property taxes in 2017 may be tax deductible under certain circumstances. The IRS has received a number of questions from the tax community concerning the deductibility of prepaid real property taxes. In general, whether a taxpayer is allowed a deduction for the prepayment of state or local real property taxes in 2017 depends on whether the taxpayer makes the payment in 2017 and the real property taxes are assessed prior to 2018. A prepayment of anticipated real property taxes that have not been assessed prior to 2018 are not deductible in 2017. State or local law determines whether and when a property tax is assessed, which is generally when the taxpayer becomes liable for the property tax imposed. The following examples illustrate these points. Example 1: Assume County A assesses property tax on July 1, 2017 for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. On July 31, 2017, County A sends notices to residents notifying them of the assessment and billing the property tax in two installments with the first installment due Sept. 30, 2017 and the second installment due Jan. 31, 2018. Assuming taxpayer has paid the first installment in 2017, the taxpayer may choose to pay the second installment on Dec. 31, 2017, and may claim a deduction for this prepayment on the taxpayer’s 2017 return. Example 2: County B also assesses and bills its residents for property taxes on July 1, 2017, for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. County B intends to make the usual assessment in July 2018 for the period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019. However, because county residents wish to prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017, County B has revised its computer systems to accept prepayment of property taxes for the 2018-2019 property tax year. Taxpayers who prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017 will not be allowed to deduct the prepayment on their federal tax returns because the county will not assess the property tax for the 2018-2019 tax year until July 1, 2018. The IRS reminds taxpayers that a number of provisions remain available this week that could affect 2017 tax bills. Time remains to make charitable donations. See IR-17-191 for more information. The deadline to make contributions for individual retirement accounts - which can be used by some taxpayers on 2017 tax returns - is the April 2018 tax deadline. has more information on these and other provisions to help taxpayers prepare for the upcoming filing season. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Hussey, White and Williams
    Mr. Hussey may be contacted at


    January 24, 2018 —
    In McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 2015) 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9931 (“McMillin”), the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal in California published a resounding win for builders, general contractors, and others entities seeking the protections of the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code sections 895, et seq. (“SB800”). The McMillin Court firmly rejected the reasoning and outcome of both Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (“Liberty Mutual”) and Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (“Burch”), and held that:
    the Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in residential construction, involving new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003 (§ 938), be subject to the standards and the requirements of the Act; the homeowner bringing such a claim must give notice to the builder and engage in the prelitigation procedures in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Act prior to filing suit in court.
    (McMillin, Opinion, p. 15.) The McMillin Court further held that even if the claimant’s counsel intentionally pleads around SB800 by asserting only tort causes of action, SB800 still applies to all defect claims and a stay of the action to require SB800 compliance is appropriate. Newmeyer & Dillion has strongly supported builders’ efforts to enforce the Right to Repair Act since its inception. The firm filed an amicus brief in McMillin on behalf of Leading Builders of America (“LBA”), an association of the leading residential homebuilders in the United States. For years, LBA members developed their warranty and dispute resolution procedures according to the Right to Repair Act and performed prelitigation repairs to the satisfaction of thousands of homeowners. Liberty Mutual and Burch undermined the Right to Repair Act by allowing plaintiffs’ attorneys to circumvent the prelitigation procedures to the detriment of homeowners and builders, resulting in confusion and increased litigation. The McMillin decision breathes new life into the Right to Repair Act and sets the stage for future review by the California Supreme Court. The McMillin Court focused on the express language of the Right to Repair Act to arrive at its conclusion that Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943 and 944 demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to occupy the field of construction defect litigation – a belief held by nearly all in the construction industry and the California Superior Courts before Liberty Mutual. The McMillin Court found further support for SB800’s comprehensive nature in the Legislative history, which consistently described the Act as “groundbreaking reform” and a “major change” in construction defect litigation, designed to “significantly reduce the cost of construction defect litigation and make housing more affordable.” (McMillin, Opinion, pp. 18-19.) The McMillin Court found it inescapable that the Right to Repair Act exclusively governs construction defect litigation involving homes sold on or after January 1, 2003. The McMillin, decision will have a significant impact on construction litigation moving forward in two respects. First, McMillin, is the only appellate decision to date to address whether a builder has the right to enforce SB800 when the claimant’s counsel deliberately attempts to plead around SB800 by asserting only tort claims. Second, the decision provides trial courts with the authority and precedent to ensure compliance with the Right to Repair Act. Trial courts may also find it necessary to revisit prior rulings against builders that relied on Liberty Mutual. Newmeyer & Dillion will continue to advocate in support of builders and general contractors by working vigorously to gain further support for the McMillin, decision and setting the stage for review by the California Supreme Court. Jeffrey R. Brower is an associate at the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. His practice focuses on business and construction litigation. Jeffrey can be reached at Nathan Owens is the managing partner of the Las Vegas office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP. He represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. Nathan can be reached at 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

    Making Construction Innovation Stick

    February 22, 2018 —
    Integrating innovations into construction workflows—rather than serially testing, piloting and discarding them—is a definition of success. Yet few innovations—even ones that shine in trials—are absorbed into practice. Many just quietly go away, sending the work of vetting and testing them down the drain. That leaves some firms wondering if most construction technology innovation efforts are a waste of time. Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record authors Tom Sawyer, Jeff Rubenstone and Scott Lewis Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at Mr. Lewis may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    May 24, 2018 —
    President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed by Congress in December included a new community development program designed to promote investment in low income urban and rural communities. These “Opportunity Zones” provide that every Governor may nominate up to 25% of qualifying low-income Census tracts for consideration in the program which provides substantial reductions on capital gains taxes with the greatest benefits to those holding their investments for a period of at least 10 years. States were required by March 21st to submit nominations or request a 30 day extension to subsequently submit. The Treasury Department in turn has 30 days from the date of submission to designate the nominated zones. On April 9, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS formally dedicated opportunity zones in 18 states including Arizona. The Department will make future designations as submissions by the states that have requested an extension are received and certified. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Paul may be contacted at

    Happy New Year from CDJ

    January 04, 2018 —
    The CDJ staff has compiled a “Top 10” list of the articles published in 2017. These articles were the “most read” by our audience last year. These most read stories range from contemplating construction industry conundrums to a surprising increase of new home construction nationwide. As we kick off our first publication of 2018 we are excited to continue to bring you interesting and relevant content. We hope that you will continue to rely on CDJ for an insightful weekly summary of what is happening in the construction defect industry. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of


    January 24, 2018 —
    RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ. JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ. DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ. The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held inLiberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred. The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely a remedy for construction defects but the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage. The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed. The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard Glucksman, Glenn Barger, Jon Turigliatto and David Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at Mr. Barger may be contacted at Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at Mr. Napper may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Residential Contractors, Be Sure to Have these Clauses in Your Contracts

    May 16, 2018 —
    I have often “mused” on the need to have a good solid construction contract at the beginning of a project. While this is always true, it is particularly true in residential contracting where a homeowner may or may not know the construction process or have experience with large scale construction. Often you, as a construction general contractor, are providing the first large scale construction that the homeowner has experienced. For this reason, through meetings and the construction contract, setting expectations early and often is key. As a side note to this need to set expectations, the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) and the Virginia General Assembly require certain clauses to be in every residential construction contract. DPOR strictly enforces these contractual items and failure to put them in your contracts can lead to fines, penalties and possibly even revocation of a contractor’s license. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Wildfires Threaten to Make Home Insurance Unaffordable

    January 10, 2018 —
    More frequent and intense wildfires are making it harder for homeowners to find and keep insurance in California, a state regulator warned Thursday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg