BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia construction cost estimating expert witnessAshburn Virginia reconstruction expert witnessAshburn Virginia building expertAshburn Virginia expert witnesses fenestrationAshburn Virginia building code compliance expert witnessAshburn Virginia structural engineering expert witnessesAshburn Virginia OSHA expert witness construction
    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


    New Law Impacting Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Haight Expands California Reach – Opens Office in Sacramento

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Jean Nouvel’s NYC ‘Vision Machine’ Sued Over Construction Defects

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

    Quarter Four a Good One for Luxury Homebuilder

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Returns as a Sponsor at the 30th Annual Construction Law Conference in San Antonio

    Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles

    Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    What are the Potential Damages when a House is a Lemon?

    Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

    Savannah Homeowners Win Sizable Judgment in Mold Case against HVAC Contractor

    Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

    California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

    Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

    Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Steps to Curb Construction Defect Actions for Homebuilders

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

    OSHA Again Pushes Back Record-Keeping Rule Deadline

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Compliance with Building Code Included in Property Damage

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Final Furnishing Date is a Question of Fact

    Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit

    ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Ashburn, Virginia Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Ashburn's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette

    February 15, 2018 —
    Gonzalez v. Mathis, 2018 WL 718528 confirms the difficulties a defendant will face when trying to overcome the Kinsman exception to the Privette doctrine on a dispositive motion when dealing with an open and obvious hazard. There, a professional window washer fell off a roof while walking along a parapet wall constructed by the owner of a home. The window washer filed suit against the homeowner and alleged three dangerous conditions on the roof: (1) the parapet wall forced those who needed to access a skylight to walk along an exposed two-foot ledge that lacked a safety railing; (2) dilapidated and slippery roof shingles; and (3) the lack of tie off points that would allow maintenance workers to secure themselves with ropes or harnesses. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny which prohibits an independent contractor from suing his or her hirer for workplace injuries (“Privette doctrine”). There are two exceptions to the Privette doctrine. First, a hirer cannot avoid liability when he or she exercises control over the manner and means in which a contractor does his or her work and that control contributes to the injuries sustained – known as the “Hooker exception” (premised on the holding of Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198). Second, a hirer may be found liable if he or she fails to warn the contractor of a concealed hazard on the premises – known as the “Kinsman exception” (premised on the holding of Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)). Reprinted courtesy of Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

    June 13, 2018 —
    The Slavin doctrine is an affirmative defense primarily geared to the personal injury context designed to protect contractors from third-party negligence-type claims when an owner accepts a patent defect. The Slavin doctrine protects contractors from liability for injuries to third parties by presuming that the owner has made a “reasonably careful inspection” of the contractor’s work prior to accepting it as completed; if the owner accepts the contractor’s work as complete and an alleged defect is patent, then the owner “accepts the defects and the negligence that caused them as his own,” and the contractor will no longer be liable for the patent defect. 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

    Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

    March 14, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Ctr. For Excellence in Higher Ed., Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25424 (D. Col. Feb. 16, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado had occasion to consider whether a breach of contract claim could qualify for coverage under a general liability policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    January 10, 2018 —

    Binding arbitration is an alternative to litigation. Instead of having your dispute decided by a judge and/or jury, it is decided by an arbitrator through an arbitration process. Arbitration, however, is a creature of contract, meaning there needs to be a contractual arbitration provision requiring the parties to arbitrate, and not litigate, their dispute. Just like litigation, there are pros and cons to the arbitration process, oftentimes dictated by the specific facts and legal issues in the case.

    What happens when a person executes two (or more) contemporaneous contracts, one with an arbitration provision and one without? Are the parties required to arbitrate the dispute arising out of the contract that does not contain the arbitration provision?

    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

    Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage

    March 14, 2018 —
    Unfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense. In Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage. After the Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense. The key issue before the Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued. In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid. While Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs. Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later. Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com. Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com. ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP 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 www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

    May 16, 2018 —
    In Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation, Case No. F074027 (March 27, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District considered the following mind-twister: Can you knowingly approve something (which does not include something else) if you never considered the absence of that “something else?” Think about that for a moment . . . or, better yet, just read on. Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation In 2013, a pickup truck traveling westbound on State Route 152 toward Los Banos, California, ran off the road injuring Erik Rodriguez and the driver and killing another passenger. Rodriguez sued the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on the ground that the accident was caused by a dangerous condition on public property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    February 07, 2018 —
    As of January 1, 2018, direct contractors in California who make or take a contract “for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” are jointly and severally liable with their subcontractors for any unpaid wages, fringe benefits and other benefit payments or contributions owed to wage claimants. Governor Brown approved AB 1701 on October 14, 2017. The new law puts the onus on direct contractors to not only monitor their own payroll practices, but to ensure that their subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors are engaging in proper payroll practices. Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Nora Stilestein, Candace Matson and Mercedes Cook Ms. Stilestein may be contacted at nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Cook may be contacted at mcook@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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