• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia eifs expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witnesses fenestrationAshburn Virginia architectural engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness concrete failureAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witness consultantAshburn Virginia reconstruction 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

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)

    Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful

    St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

    KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

    Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case

    Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

    Architect Sues over Bidding Procedure

    Nevada Construction Defect Lawyers Dead in Possible Suicides

    Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels

    Not So Unambiguous: California Court of Appeal Finds Coverage for Additional Insured

    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    This Times Square Makeover Is Not a Tourist Attraction

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

    Manhattan Townhouse Sells for a Record $79.5 Million

    Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    When Your “Private” Project Suddenly Turns into a “Public” Project. Hint: It Doesn’t Necessary Turn on Public Financing or Construction

    The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

    No Coverage for Property Damage That is Limited to Work Completed by Subcontractor

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    “Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

    A Third of U.S. Homebuyers Are Bidding Sight Unseen

    Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    FIFA Inspecting Brazil’s World Cup Stadiums

    An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health

    Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital
    Corporate Profile


    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. Drawing 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


    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

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    May 24, 2018 —
    Every few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1] The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    February 22, 2018 —
    It’s the rare construction firm that doesn’t cite people as its most important resource. And over the past two decades, that asset has become increasingly bilingual. Indeed, more than 27% of workers in construction are Hispanic or of Latino ethnicity, according to the most recent available data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record

    Florida Federal Court Reinforces Principle That Precise Policy Language Is Required Before An Insurer Can Deny Coverage Based On An Exclusion

    February 07, 2018 —
    A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Byron of the Middle District of Florida has made clear that the actual words used in an insurance contract matter. The court, in Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Tactic Security Enforcement, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-01425 (M.D. FL. 2018), denied an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment attempting to rely on an exclusion to deny coverage to its policyholder. The policyholder, Que Rico La Casa Del Mofongo, operated a restaurant establishment in Orlando, Florida, and sought coverage for two negligence lawsuits filed against it for allegedly failing to prevent a shooting and another violent incident on its premises. Reprinted courtesy of Walter J. Andrews, Hunton & Williams and Katherine Miller, Hunton & Williams Mr. Andrews may be contacted at Ms. Miller may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

    December 20, 2017 —
    The Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., Case No., SC16-1420, which answered the following certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a “suit'” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI? Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Chiocca, Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
    Mr. Chiocca may be contacted at

    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

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    June 06, 2018 —
    Here at Musings, I have often (some might say too often) discussed the fact that in Virginia (as well as other places), your construction contract language will be strictly enforced. I have also discussed the need for attorney fees provisions as well as other language in order to mitigate your risk as a contractor. A recent case from the City of Roanoke Circuit Court discussed both of these principals and their intersection. In LAM Enterprises, LLC v. Roofing Solutions, Inc., the Roanoke Court looked at a contract between LAM and Roofing Solutions, Inc. that contained two provisions of the construction contract between the parties. The first provision limited the liability of Roofing Solutions to the contract price. The second provision is a relatively typical “prevailing party” attorney fees provision in which the winner of any lawsuit would be entitled to collect its attorney fees. For the specific language of these provisions, I commend the opinion linked above for your reading. 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

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    December 20, 2017 —
    On November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at Ms. Martino may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of