BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert testimonyAshburn Virginia structural engineering expert witnessesAshburn Virginia soil failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia civil engineer expert witnessAshburn Virginia delay claim expert witnessAshburn 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


    Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

    No Coverage Under Exclusions For Wind and Water Damage

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

    Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Ninth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Construction Defects Under California Law

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    #3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

    EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

    Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered

    Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

    Broker's Motion for Summary Judgment on Negligence Claim Denied

    How AI and Machine Learning Are Helping Construction Reduce Risk and Improve Margins

    Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    Almost Half of Homes in New York and D.C. Are Now Losing Value

    WSHB Expands into the Southeast

    Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

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

    With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

    The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    Defining Construction Defects

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

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

    No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

    Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Consumer Protection Act Whacks Seattle Roofing Contractor

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    9th Circuit Closes the Door on “Open Shop” Contractor

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Updated: Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 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

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    November 21, 2018 —
    Nov. 15, 2018 Update: After calling on Nov. 8 for a “complete structural evaluation” of San Francisco's 1.2-million-sq-ft SalesForce Transit Center, following the discovery on Sept. 25 of significant, mid-span cracks in the bottom flanges of twin parallel girders spanning 80 ft over Fremont Street, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority now says the problems with girders are localized. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    February 06, 2019 —
    In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    February 11, 2019 —
    A recent opinion came out that held that even though an indemnification provision in a subcontract was unenforceable per Florida Statute s. 725.06, the unenforceable portion is merely severed out of the indemnification clause leaving the rest of the clause intact. In essence, an otherwise invalid indemnification clause is bailed out by this ruling (which does not even discuss whether this subcontract had a severability provision that states that if any portion of any provision in the subcontract is invalid, such invalid portion shall be severed and the remaining portion of the provision shall remain in full force and effect). This opinion arose from a construction defect case, CB Contractxors, LLC v. Allens Steel Products, Inc.,43 Fla.L.Weekly D2773a (Fla. 5thDCA 2018), where the general contractor, sued by an association, flowed down damages to subcontractors based on the contractual indemnification provision in the subcontracts. Subcontractors moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim because it was not compliant with Florida Statute s. 725.06. The indemnification provision required the subcontractors to indemnify the general contractor even for the general contractors own partial negligence, but failed to specify a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification as required by Florida Statute s. 725.06. (The indemnification clause in the subcontract was the standard intermediate form of indemnification that required the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for claims regardless of whether the claims were caused in part by the general contractor.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    April 10, 2019 —
    For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
    • Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    February 11, 2019 —
    Jan. 10 --A series of "prematurely" awarded rail contracts doled out to construction companies as early as 2009 prompted delay claims and change orders that increased the cost of the Honolulu rail project by more than $354 million , according to a new report by the Hawaii State Auditor released today. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

    December 19, 2018 —
    In Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Slay Engineering, et al.,1 a Texas federal court ruled in favor of a general contractor, finding that its insurer had a duty to defend it in a construction defect case filed by the owner. The decision adds more clarity to the interpretation of the subcontractor exception to the “Damage to Your Work” exclusion as well as the Breach of Contract exclusion, which has been the subject of several cases coming out of Texas over the past decade. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com

    Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

    November 14, 2018 —
    Digitalization creates new opportunities for citizen engagement in urban planning. I gave a short presentation on the topic at the Digitalization in Urban Planning event in Helsinki. The event was organized by CHAOS Architects, a tech company. Its AI cloud platform allows citizens to share ideas about their city and co-create it with their community. The platform contains engagement-driven applications and third-party APIs that process business intelligence for better interaction and decision-making. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    When is a “Willful” Violation Willful (or Not) Under California’s Contractor Enforcement Statutes?

    April 17, 2019 —
    The enforcement statutes applicable to the California Contractors’ State License Board aren’t exactly models in clarity. A few examples: 1. Business and Professions Code Section 7107: Abandonment without legal excuse of any construction project or operation engaged in or undertaken by the license as a contractor constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. 2. Business and Professions Code Section 7109: A willful departure in any material respect from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction constitutes a cause for disciplinary action, unless the departure was in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by or under the direct supervision of an architect. 3. Business and Professions Code Section 7110: Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building laws of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, . . . or of the safety or labor laws or compensation insurance laws or Unemployment Insurance Code of the State, or of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practice Act, or violation by any licensee of any provision of the Health and Safety Code or Water Code, relating to the digging, boring, or drilling of water wells, constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com