• institutional building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania high-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania Subterranean parking expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania retail construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania production housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominiums expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania casino resort expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania landscaping construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania mid-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania townhome construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania Medical building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania custom home expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania hospital construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania low-income housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania tract home expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania custom homes expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania office building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominium expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania structural steel construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania multi family housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania parking structure expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania
    New Washington Pennsylvania construction expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania construction defect expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania expert witness structural engineerNew Washington Pennsylvania OSHA expert witness constructionNew Washington Pennsylvania architecture expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania fenestration expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania building code expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    New Washington, Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 1875 stipulates that “no later than 90 days before filing an action, serve written notice of claim on the contractor. Upon receipt of notice, builder has 15 days to forward the claim to any subcontractor/supplier and 30 days after service of notice to offer to compromise and settle the claim by monetary payment without inspection, propose to inspect the dwelling that is the subject of the claim; or reject the claim. Contractor has 14 days after inspection to provide written notice of intention.”

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines New Washington Pennsylvania

    No state license required. For public works projects, see General Services website.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Adams County
    Local # 3920
    PO Box 3321
    Gettysburg, PA 17325
    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Fayette County
    Local # 3961
    PO Box 1323
    Uniontown, PA 15401
    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Somerset Co Builders Association
    Local # 3958
    PO Box 221
    Berlin, PA 15530

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Franklin County Builders Association
    Local # 3912
    1102 Sheller Ave Ste C
    Chambersburg, PA 17201

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Building Industry Association of Philadelphia
    Local # 3946
    1735 Market St Ste A432
    Philadelphia, PA 19103

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Chester & Delaware Co
    Local # 3941
    1502 McDaniel Dr
    West Chester, PA 19380

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    York County Builders Assn
    Local # 3972
    540 Greebriar Road
    York, PA 17404

    New Washington Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For New Washington Pennsylvania

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

    Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

    Fannie-Freddie Elimination Model in Apartments: Mortgages

    OSHA Investigating Bridge Accident Resulting in Construction Worker Fatality

    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

    Discussion of History of Construction Defect Litigation in California

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

    Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    Banks Loosening U.S. Mortgage Standards: Chart of the Day

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Brazil World Cup Soccer Crisis Deepens With Eighth Worker Death

    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case

    Faulty Workmanship Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage

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

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Medical Center Builder Sues Contracting Agent, Citing Costly Delays

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    Apartments pushed up US homebuilding in September

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    Documentation Important for Defending Construction Defect Claims

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

    Understanding the Miller Act

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

    District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Michigan Supreme Court Concludes No Statute of Repose on Breach of Contract

    MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit

    U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February

    Ben L. Aderholt Joins Coats Rose Construction Litigation Group
    Corporate Profile


    The New Washington, Pennsylvania 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
    New Washington, Pennsylvania

    Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

    October 25, 2013 —
    Pieter M. O’Leary, writing for the site AVVO offers the advice that whether a construction defect is patent or latent could influence whether or not it’s covered in a construction defect claim. He notes that a “patent defect” is “a construction defect that is ‘readily observable or evident,’” while a “latent defect” is “a construction defect that is present but not readily detectable even with reasonable care.” While this may sound like a simple distinction, he notes that “distinguishing between the two can often be difficult and sometimes highly contested by the various parties in a lawsuit.” The first question is “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.” The question arises because “if a defect is hidden and not detectable (latent defect), a longer time period exists for the claimant to file a claim.” Read the full story...

    Sales Pickup Shows Healing U.S. Real Estate Market

    June 26, 2014 —
    Americans snapped up previously owned homes in May in the biggest monthly sales gain in almost three years, a sign the residential real estate market is regaining its footing after a stumble early in the year. Purchases climbed 4.9 percent, the biggest increase since August 2011, to a 4.89 million annualized rate, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed today in Washington. The level was the strongest since October. The report also showed price appreciation is slowing as more homes become available. A more balanced market, including a wider selection of properties, smaller price gains and still-low borrowing costs, may encourage more Americans to buy as employment strengthens. Improving demand will probably spur a pickup in construction, and builders such as Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. (HOV) are optimistic. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chandra may be contacted at

    Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

    February 18, 2015 —
    The New Hampshire Supreme Court found some of the property damage evolving from the insured's portion of the work was covered under its liability policy. Cogswell Farm Condo. Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc., 2015 N.H. LEXIS 3 (N.H. Jan. 13, 2015). Lemery Building Company, Inc. constructed and developed 24 residential condominium units. After units were sold, the Cogswell Farm Condominium Association sued Lemery, asserting that the "weather barrier" components of the units were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Cogswell then sued its insurer, Tower Group, Inc., seeking a declaratory judgment that its claims against Lemery were covered. The trial court eventually determined that exclusions J (1) and J (6) both applied to exclude coverage. Exclusion J (1) excluded coverage for "property damage" to property that Lemery "owns, rents, or occupies." Exclusion J (6) excluded coverage for property damage to "[t] hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because [Lemery's] work was incorrectly performed on it." Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    April 04, 2011 —

    In American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Girl, Inc., 673 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 2004), the insured general contractor was hired by the owner to design and build a warehouse on the owner s property. The general contractor hired a soil engineer to do a soil analysis and make site preparation recommendations. The soil engineer determined that the soil conditions were poor and recommended a compression process which the general contractor followed. After the warehouse was completed and the owner took possession, excessive soil settlement caused the foundation to sink which in turn caused structural damage to the warehouse. The warehouse had to be torn down.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defect Not a RICO Case, Says Court

    August 04, 2011 —

    The US District Court of North Carolina has rejected an attempt by a homeowner to restart her construction defect claim by turning it into a RICO lawsuit. Linda Sharp, the plaintiff in the case of Sharp v. Town of Kitty Hawk, attempted to amend a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and argued that her case belonged in the federal courts.

    Ms. Sharp sued in November, 2010 claiming construction defects. She sued in federal court, although the court noted that as she and most of the defendants are citizens of North Carolina, the state court would have been the appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the court noted that one federal claim Sharp made was dismissed with prejudice, leaving only the state law claims. These the court dismissed without prejudice, declining to exercise jurisdiction over North Carolina law.

    After the dismissal, Ms. Sharp attempted to amend her complaint after the deadline. To do so, according to the court, she would be required to obtain consent from defendants or leave of the court. She did neither.

    In his opinion, Judge W. Earl Britt rejected her motion for leave to amend. He also granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close the case.

    Read the court’s decision…

    Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)

    August 17, 2011 —

    Have you ever considered a “Safe Harbor Provision” for your Owner-Architect or Owner-Engineer contract? Maybe it is time that you do.

    As you are (probably too well) aware, on every construction project there are changes. Some of these are due to the owner’s change of heart, value engineering concerns, contractor failures, and material substitutions. Some may be because of a design error, omission, or drawing conflict. It happens.

    A “Safe Harbor Provision” is a provision that establishes an acceptable percentage of increased construction costs (that is, a percentage of the project’s contingency). The idea is that if the construction changes attributable to the designer is within this percentage, no claim will be made by the Owner for design defects.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at

    Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

    October 22, 2014 —
    Builder reported that “[a] new game-changing system, recently recognized for its energy-efficient composite approach to basement construction, soon could change how American builders construct foundations.” Epitome composite foundation walls from Composite Panel Systems (CPS) “was awarded the Composites and Advanced Materials Exposition’s Unsurpassed Innovation Award in Orlando, Fla., on Oct. 14.” The system “combines integrated stud cavities for mechanicals, insulation, the top plate, and a vapor barrier in a single step.” It has been approved for use in Wisconsin, and is expected to receive International Building code and International Residential Code compliance later this year. Read the full story...

    Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group

    November 06, 2013 —
    Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. has announced that the attorneys of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Perczak & Nuss, P.C. will be joining them as S2SPN Construction Defect Group of Berg Simpson. The group will be headquartered at Burg Simpson’s Engelwood offices. The combined firms will comprise 55 attorneys. Michael Burg, founding shareholder at Burg Simpson, said that “in Colorado for the past 29 years, these lawyers have provided the highest level of construction defect representation.” His counterpart, Scott Sullan of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Perczak & Nuss said that he and his colleagues are “delighted to be a part of the Burg Simpson team.” The two firms join forces effective January 1, 2014. Read the full story...