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


    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    Construction Defect Lawsuits Hinted for Dublin, California

    Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage

    Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

    Contractor Pleads Guilty to Disadvantaged-Business Fraud

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

    When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

    Tax Increase Pumps $52 Billion Into California Construction

    New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

    U.S. Stocks Fall as Small Shares Tumble Amid Home Sales

    Unlicensed Contractors Nabbed in Sting Operation

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

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    24th Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar A Success

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

    Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

    Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

    Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January

    Creating a Custom Home Feature in the Great Outdoors

    Drop in Civil Trials May Cause Problems for Construction Defect Cases

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    Virginia Chinese Drywall and pollution exclusion

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Covered

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    Single-Family Home Starts Seen Catching Up to Surging U.S. Sales

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

    Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood
    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. 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

    Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing

    February 28, 2018 —
    As Dwight Schrute of hit NBC show “The Office” said, “identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!” In response, Congress has passed a variety of legislation over the years aimed at curbing identity theft. One such piece of legislation, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as amended by corollary acts, prohibits the printing of more than the last 5 digits of the credit card number or the credit card number’s expiration date on any sales receipt. Anyone who “willfully fails to comply with [the requirements] is liable to that consumer” for statutory or actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and potential punitive damages. But is a statutory violation of the FCRA alone a sufficient injury to confer Article III standing? No, says the Ninth Circuit. Reprinted courtesy of Omar Parra, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II , Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    "Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

    May 16, 2018 —
    The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that the insured was entitled to coverage under the policy's "ordinance or law" provision for repairs to prevent a future collapse of both the damaged and undamaged portions of the building. Jefferson Cnty. Schools v. Tenn. Risk Mgmt. Trust, 2018 Tenn. app. LEXIS 138 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 15, 2018). A major rainstorm caused a portion of Building 8, an aging vocation building at a high school, to collapse. Building 8 was covered through Tennessee Risk Management up to $100,000. Excess claims were covered by Travelers Indemnity Company. The policy included an "ordinance or law" provision providing for coverage of expenses "caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law." Further, the insurer agreed to pay for the loss to any undamaged portions of a building caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law that required the construction or repair of buildings. 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

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    March 14, 2018 —
    A property insurance policy, no different than any insurance policy, contains exclusions for events that are NOT covered under the terms of the policy. One such common exclusion in a property insurance policy is an exclusion for damages caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days." The application of this exclusion was discussed in the recent opinion of Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, while the insured was out of town, the water line to his refrigerator started to leak. When the insured return home over a month later, the supply line was discharging almost a thousand gallons of water per day. The insured submitted a property insurance claim. The property insurer engaged a consultant that opined (likely, correctly) that the water line had been leaking for at least five weeks. Based on the above-mentioned exclusion, i.e., that water had been constantly leaking for over a period of 14 days, the insurer denied coverage. This denial led to the inevitable coverage dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

    June 06, 2018 —
    rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

    March 22, 2018 —
    In Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the Privette doctrine. Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death. Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    May 16, 2018 —
    Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies typically include a “your work” exclusion, excluding coverage for “’property damage’ to ‘your work’ arising out of it or any part of it and included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard.’” These CGL policies define “your work,” in pertinent part, as “work or operations performed by you or on your behalf.” (emphasis added). As the recent case of Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. JWN Construction, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20529 (S.D. Fla. 2018) reminds us, the “your work” exclusion can serve to eliminate coverage for a general contractor, even when property damage is caused by a subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John J. Kozak, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Kozak may be contacted at john.kozak@csklegal.com

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

    February 22, 2018 —
    There is a common misconception that all Philadelphia Public Works projects must be performed pursuant to a project labor agreement with various members of the Building and Construction Trades Council. This common misconception is even shared by the current Mayoral administration, who I saw in a recent court filing testified under oath that “project labor agreements are required for all construction projects in Philadelphia with a value of at least five million dollars.” (As is discussed below this is flat out false.) No one has yet to step forward to challenge Philadelphia’s project labor agreement scheme. However, if someone did, I think the challenge would be successful for three reasons. First, contrary to the Mayor’s representative’s statement, there is no requirement that all projects in excess of $5 million be subject to a project labor agreement. Second, Philadelphia’s project labor agreement excludes signatories to collective bargaining agreements with the United Steel Workers (USW) from participating, which violates public bid laws. Third, the exclusion of the USW, also gives rise to a challenge that federal labor law preempts the project labor agreement. A. Background on the Philadelphia PLA. Under a project labor agreement (PLA), a contractor wishing to perform work on a project agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of employment established by the public owner and certain construction unions. Each PLA varies, but typically PLA’s will require a contractor’s employees to become members of a union – if they are already not members – in order to work on a project or will require a contractor to hire labor from a union hiring hall. PLA’s are controversial because they exclude non-union contractors from performing work on a project subject to a PLA, unless of course that contractor agrees to become “union” for purposes of that project. For reasons beyond this blog post, a merit shop contractor would be crazy to do that. The “Philadelphia PLA” that Mayor Kenney believes is required for all public projects over $5 million was instituted by Mayor Nutter through a 2011 Executive Order(Executive Order No. 15-11, Public Works Project Labor Agreements). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

    January 04, 2018 —
    Originally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017 A re-booted construction defects reform bill recently passed its first Senate committee, according to the Denver Business Journal. Next, Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Sen. Owen Hill, R-Colorado Springs, heads to the Senate floor for debate. SB 156 “would require that condominium owners alleging construction defects take their disputes to arbitration or mediation if requested by builders,” the Denver Business Journal reported. “It also would require that homeowners be informed of the consequences of filing legal actions over purported disputes and that a majority of all owners in a condominium complex vote to proceed with legal action, rather than just a majority of homeowners association board members.” However, it is almost identical to the failed measures that were introduced in 2014 and 2015. Homeowners association group members and owners of defective condominiums argued against the measure, stating “that the effort would not improve the quality of building in the state, but simply would block aggrieved Coloradans from taking their complaints before a jury of their peers.” Proponent of the bill, Tom Clark, CEO of Metro Denver Economic Development Corp., said “that Denver’s housing costs have risen since the first bill was introduced in 2013 to the sixth-most-expensive in the country – and are tops for any metro area not on a coast.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of