BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia reconstruction expert witnessAshburn Virginia structural concrete expertAshburn Virginia construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expertsAshburn Virginia construction expert witness consultantAshburn Virginia construction defect 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


    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

    WCC and BHA Raised Thousands for Children’s Cancer Research at 25th West Coast Casualty CD Seminar

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel

    Construction Defects Claims Can Be Limited by Contract Says Washington Court

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

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, TX

    Asbestos Exclusion Bars Coverage

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter

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

    New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

    Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case

    Rattlesnake Bite Triggers Potential Liability for Walmart

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    Water Intrusion Judged Not Related to Construction

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

    California Court of Appeal Adopts Horizontal Exhaustion Rule

    Spa High-Rise Residents Frustrated by Construction Defects

    Battle of “Other Insurance” Clauses

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    New Rule Prohibits Use of Funds For Certain DoD Construction and Infrastructure Programs and Projects

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

    Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

    Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

    Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction

    Consequential Damages Flowing from Construction Defect Not Covered Under Florida Law

    Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Fargo Shows Record Home Building

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Mitsubishi Estate to Rebuild Apartments After Defects Found
    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

    Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course

    May 30, 2018 —
    Federal Contractors—especially those engaging in FAR Part 15 direct contract negotiations—should make it a routine practice to timely request debriefings after the Contracting Agency excludes the bidder from the competitive range (“pre-award debriefing”) or after the Agency issues the award (“post-award debriefing”). Debriefings allow the Contractor to understand the evaluation process used by the Contracting Agency and to receive an assessment of how it fared in that evaluation. This is not a one-sided presentation as Contracting Agencies are required to answer the contractor’s relevant questions about the decision-making process. Properly run debriefings can be used to better tailor future bids and negotiations, as further marketing to the Contracting Agency for future awards, and, occasionally, to unearth grounds for a potential protest if any part of the evaluation process is out of sync with the FARs. In the event the contractor learns of a basis for protest at the debriefing, the deadline to file a protest begins running from the date of the debriefing—whether it was required or not. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. MacDonald may be contacted at scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    May 30, 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, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
    Mr. Nagpal may be contacted at vnagpal@bremerwhyte.com

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    March 28, 2018 —
    After Hurricane Irma, I wrote an article that contractors should revisit the force majeure provisions in their construction contracts. Not later. But Now. The force majeure provision is an important provision in a construction contract to account for certain uncertainties that you have NO control over. Recently, another reason has given rise to contractors needing to revisit their force majeure provisions, as well as any provisions dealing with material escalations. Not later. But now. The imposition of raw steel and aluminum tariffs (tax on imported goods) and the back-and-forth regarding a potential trade war leads to the kind of uncertainty that should be assessed as a risk. A risk in both time and cost from material escalations. 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

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    February 28, 2018 —
    The UK Construction Week megashow, set to attract 35,000 attendees and more than 670 exhibitors October 9-11 in Birmingham, England, released a new "code of conduct" for exhibitors, banning the use of "promo girls" and stressing “equality, diversity and inclusion" in marketing, event organizers announced Feb. 12. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
    Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

    Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond

    April 11, 2018 —
    When it comes to Miller Act payment bond claims, repairing one’s own work does NOT extend the one year statute of limitations to file suit on a Miler Act payment bond. Belonger Corp., Inc. v. BW Contracting Services, Inc., 2018 WL 704379, *3 (E.D. Wisconsin 2018) (“The courts that have considered this question tend to agree that, once a subcontractor completes its work under the subcontract, repairs or corrections to that work do not fall within the meaning of ‘labor’ or ‘materials’ and, as such, do not extend the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations.”). Well, what if the subcontractor was repairing its own work due to an issue caused by another subcontractor? 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

    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. IRS.gov 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 husseyw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    June 06, 2018 —
    In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

    March 28, 2018 —
    Part II of this three-part series compares and analyzes important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions), including Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part I covered Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. SCHEDULE/TIME Relevant Sections:
    • 2007 & 2017 A201: Section 3.10.1
    • 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs: Section 6.2
    AIA:
    • Section 3.10.1 of the 2007 A201 requires that the Contractor promptly after being awarded the Contract, prepare and submit a construction schedule providing for Work to be completed within the time limits required in the Contract Documents.
    • This schedule shall be revised at appropriate intervals.
    • The 2017 edition breaks down the schedule to contain date of commencement, interim milestone dates, date of substantial completion, apportionment of Work by trade or building system, and the time required for completion of each portion of the Work.
    • Under section 3.10.2 of the 2007 and 2017 versions, if the Contractor fails to provide a submittal schedule, the Contractor is not entitled to any additional compensation or a time extension based on the Owner’s or the Architect’s slow processing of submittals, regardless of how long they take.
    ConsensusDocs 200:
    • The 2017 Contract replaces the term Contract Time and instead requires a “Schedule of the Work…formatted in detailed precedence-style critical path method that (a) provides a graphic representation of all activities and events, including float values that will affect the critical path of the Work and (b) identifies dates that are critical to ensure timely and orderly completion of the Work.”
    • The Constructor must submit an initial schedule to the Owner only before, “first application for payment” and thereafter on a monthly basis. (Section 6.2.1).
    • The Owner is allowed to change the sequences provided in the schedule as long as it does not “unreasonably interfere with the Work.” (Section 6.2.2).
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of