• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom home expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania institutional building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania Medical building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania Subterranean parking expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania landscaping construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominiums expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania office building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania multi family housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania parking structure expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania townhome construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania custom homes expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania condominium expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania high-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania mid-rise construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania concrete tilt-up expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania hospital construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania retail construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania industrial building expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania production housing expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania casino resort expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania structural steel construction expert witness New Washington Pennsylvania
    New Washington Pennsylvania fenestration expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania structural engineering expert witnessesNew Washington Pennsylvania construction expert witness public projectsNew Washington Pennsylvania construction expertsNew Washington Pennsylvania architectural engineering expert witnessNew Washington Pennsylvania expert witness commercial buildingsNew Washington Pennsylvania building envelope 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

    General Contractors Can Be Sued by a Subcontractor’s Injured Employee

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Michigan: Identifying and Exploiting the "Queen Exception" to No-Fault Subrogation

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    Contractor Sues Construction Defect Claimants for Defamation

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Construction Defect Bill Introduced in California

    Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their San Antonio Office

    Yellen Has Scant Power to Relieve U.S. Housing Slowdown

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    Factories Boost U.S. Output as Builders Gain Confidence: Economy

    Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

    Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Coping with Labor & Install Issues in Green Building

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    Houston’s High Housing Demand due to Employment Growth

    Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

    Background Owner of Property Cannot Be Compelled to Arbitrate Construction Defects

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

    Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects

    Four Ways Student Debt Is Wreaking Havoc on Millennials

    Contractors: Beware the Subordination Clause

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Finalists in San Diego’s Moving Parklet Design Competition Announced

    Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

    New York Developers Facing Construction Defect Lawsuit

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    I’m Sorry, So Sorry: Legal Implications of Apologies and Admissions of Fault for Delaware Healthcare Professionals

    Gehry-Designed Project Seen Bringing NYC Vibe to L.A.

    Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

    Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 4500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the New Washington, Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to New Washington'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
    New Washington, Pennsylvania

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    October 02, 2013 —
    After nearly a year of growth, residential construction contracts dropped 22% in the Denver area in August. Residential construction contracts are still above what they were before August 2012, but the gains since then have been wiped out. The value of contracts in August 2012 was $219.8 million, and this this August they have fallen to $171.7 million. Commercial construction also saw a reduction, however, there the fall was only 7%, dropping from $1.54 billion to $1.43 billion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    November 06, 2013 —
    Pennsylvania may soon change how it adopts changes to its implementation of the Uniform Construction Code, but it’s not clear which method will be adopted, as the Pennsylvania House and Senate have competing bills. In the Senate bill (SB1023), the only change would be that any changes to the Uniform Building Code made by the International Code Council would automatically become part of the Pennsylvania building code, unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania UCC Review and Advisory Council. Under current Pennsylvania law, changes are adopted only with a two-thirds approval of the RAC. The House bill (HB1209), separates the commercial code from the residential code. Under the House proposal, the RAC would reject changes to the commercial building code on a two-thirds vote, otherwise they would be adopted, but in the residential building code, changes would be rejected unless the RAC approved them by a two-thirds vote. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    October 22, 2013 —
    The Lafayette Parish School Board has settled a claim that water intrusion was caused by faulty design and construction. The board initially sued the contractor and the design firms, but under Louisiana law, the suit came too late to sue the contractor, so Ratcliff Construction was dropped from the suit. The two design firms, Corne-Lemaire Group, which did the architectural design for the school, and Beaullieu & Associates, which did the engineering, also sought to be removed from the suit due to the statute of limitations, but an appeals court concluded that the law at the time of construction did not allow this. Details of the settlement were not released. Tim Basden, the attorney for the school board acknowledged that “the principal problems were related to construction, but the lawsuit wasn’t filed timely.” According to Basden neither design firm conceded “liability or malpractice of any kind.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Harmon Tower Demolition on Hold Due to Insurer

    November 27, 2013 —
    Permission for CityCenter to demolish Harmon Tower over claims of dangerous construction defects have been withdrawn by the judge in the case after the building’s insurer said it needed more time to investigate. After they were granted permission to demolish the building on August 23, CityCenter filed a claim of total loss with their insurer FM Global on August 27. Now FM Global is saying that they need to further inspect the building. Meanwhile, a demolition contractor has already gained approval to start removing the exterior glass. And things stand, it looks as if that won’t be happening on the planned date of December 2. CityCenter contends that FM Global has already done their inspections, describing FM Global’s prior actions as “the most extensive investigation of anyone,” according to Mark Ferrario, an attorney for CityCenter. Also, the initial plan to implode the building has been rejected. Should demolition proceed, the building will be dismantled floor by floor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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

    February 23, 2016 —
    In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    October 16, 2013 —
    “Right to repair” statutes don’t only affect general contractors, but everyone involved in the building of a home, down to those who supply materials, warns Paul Gary in a post on Window & Door. He notes that “if you sell your window or door products in one of the growing number of states with a ‘Notice and Opportunity to Cure’ or ‘Right to Repair’ statute, you need a plan in the event you receive a defect notice relating to your product.” A supplier that receives a statement that a defect exists should, according to Mr. Gary, carefully document not only when the notice was received, but when it was sent, according to postmark, and whether the sender complied with all the regulations. From there, the supplier should determine if there were previous, informal complaints. Finally, determine sales information. At this point, the supplier has the information its insurer will require. His next caution is that in what follows, other may “seek defense and indemnity from you.” And while you may point out problems with the notice,” he counsels that “if you confirm there is an issue with your product, don’t be afraid to make a fair proposal for repair.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 2- Increase the Heat

    January 21, 2015 —
    Last week we discussed the groundwork and circumstances of a construction claim. This week’s post will discuss the next steps, hopefully short of full blown arbitration or litigation that you, as a construction company, can pursue presuming your claim has been properly preserved. If your contract requires certain steps such as informal resolution attempts or other items, these are the first things that must be done while still preserving your rights to pursue all remedies available. Instituting such contractually required resolution steps can and should be the first “notch” on the dial of increased pressure on the Owner, General Contractor or possibly Subcontractor against whom you have a claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    July 06, 2011 —

    Last November, mold problems were discovered at the Siena Condominiums in Montclair, New Jersey, which had been described by their developers as “an enclave of luxury in an urban village setting.” The owners have filed a lawsuit against Pinnacle Companies, Kohl Parnters, and Herod Development, seeking “compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, and for such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”

    According to the article on, an engineering report commissioned by the condominium association revealed many problems, including improperly installed windows and siding. The developers commissioned two engineering reports themselves and found evidence of water pounding on the roof. Despite these reports and repeated promises, no repairs have been made.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of