BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia slope failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness commercial buildingsAshburn Virginia construction project management expert witnessAshburn Virginia roofing construction expert
    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


    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    9 Positive Housing Statistics by Builder

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    Construction Contracts Fall in Denver

    California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

    Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

    25 Years of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

    Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    Pending Sales of Existing Homes in U.S. Decline for Eighth Month

    The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

    Contractual Assumption of Liability Does Not Bar Coverage

    Bay Area Counties Issue Less Restrictive “Shelter in Place” Orders, Including for Construction

    Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

    Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers

    Lessons Learned from Implementing Infrastructure BIM in Helsinki

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

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

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    Reminder About the Upcoming Mechanic’s Lien Form Change

    Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

    Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

    Construction Defect Reform Bill Passes Colorado Senate

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Priority of Liability Insurance Coverage and Horizontal and Vertical Exhaustion

    Nevada’s Construction Defect Law

    New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL

    Proximity Trace Used to Monitor, Maintain Social Distancing on $1.9-Billion KCI Airport Project

    Are COVID-19 Claims Covered by Builders Risk Insurance Policies?

    When to use Arbitration to Resolve Construction Disputes

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

    Bill Taylor Co-Authors Chapter in Pennsylvania Construction Law Book

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Florida trigger

    Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department

    Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

    Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage
    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 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Leveraging 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

    Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

    September 28, 2020 —
    In Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy. Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured. Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    June 29, 2020 —
    Common law indemnity is not an easy claim to prove as the one seeking common law indemnity MUST be without fault: Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other and is allowable only where the whole fault is in the one against whom indemnity is sought. It shifts the entire loss from one who, although without active negligence or fault, has been obligated to pay, because of some vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical liability, to another who should bear the costs because it was the latter’s wrongdoing for which the former is held liable. Brother’s Painting & Pressure Cleaning Corp. v. Curry-Dixon Construction, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D259b (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) quoting Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490, 492-93 (Fla. 1979). Not only must the one seeking common law indemnity be without fault, but there also needs to be a special relationship between the parties (indemnitee and common law indemnitor) for common law indemnification to exist. Brother’s Painting & Pressure Cleaning Corp., supra (citation omitted). A special relationship has been found to exist between a general contractor and its subcontractors. Id. at n.2. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

    June 22, 2020 —
    Construction trust fund statutes have been around for decades. At least 15 states have passed similar statutes. Other states, but not all, do not have an express statute but have interpreted state law to hold that payments received by a general contractor and deposited in a business account establishes a “trust fund.” See e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108. The purpose of these laws is straightforward—protect contractors and suppliers against nonpayment for the labor and materials provided for the construction or repair of property. But while the purpose is straightforward, each state’s law differs by imposing different requirements, different privileges, and different remedies. This article provides an overview of how these statutes work as well as a sampling of important requirements and potential pitfalls that you should look out for when a construction trust fund statute applies to your project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker LLP
    Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com

    Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat

    November 02, 2020 —
    Fire damage to commercial buildings might get headlines, but water damage, whether to projects under construction or completed buildings, delivers massive financial blows to owners, developers and contractors. The impact is massive, reaching many billions of dollars per year. One water leak on the 19th floor at a construction site of a high-end apartment building in New York City resulted in $30 million in property damage and millions in delayed delivery penalties. Imagine this all-too-typical scenario: A 20-story building has thousands of pipe connections and many tens of thousands throughout the entire building. It only takes one of those joints failing, perhaps due to human oversight. Early on a Saturday morning when no one is onsite, one of the connections inside a wall begins to leak, slowly at first. In a couple hours the connection fails completely, sending a cascade of water into the building. The site is located next to a highway, so the security guards don’t hear the water flowing. The leak goes undetected until crews come back onsite on Monday morning. By that point, lower levels of the building have been inundated with thousands of gallons of water that has destroyed construction material, carpeting and electrical switchgear. It’s flowed into the elevator pits and mechanical room. Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Dycian, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Dycian may be contacted at yaron@wint.ai

    Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

    October 26, 2020 —
    The commercial construction contracting and subcontracting industry in general is unique under the law for industry professionals, as they’re typically limited to wage and hour litigation under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The majority of FLSA cases seek class action status or collective classification, while other FLSA litigation is initiated by individuals seeking damages. For the former, past and current employees can opt into class action litigation and seek collective damages against a construction company. The looming financial burden of class action or collective litigation against construction companies consume time, money and resources to the extent it’s often advisable for Defendants to negotiate an unfair settlement. Yet, thanks to a recent federal court decision on March 27, 2020, the legal maneuvering behind unreasonable Plaintiff demands may soon be counter-balanced by the class action Defendants’ right to due process review. A recent legal opinion in a recent FLSA case has potentially wide-ranging implications for Defendant employers mired in future class action litigation. Moreover, as the FLSA applies to all employers, this decision potentially applies to all ownership groups representing the commercial construction industry, extending to partners, contractors and subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Pipitone may be contacted at dpipitone@munsch.com Ms. Karns may be contacted at akarns@munsch.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

    August 03, 2020 —
    Several interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts. FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes. On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Jury Trials and Mediation in Philadelphia County: Virtually in Person

    July 27, 2020 —
    When will the trial court in Philadelphia County be open for jury trials in civil actions? While a precise prediction, given the current state of our trial courts in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, is difficult to make, what is known is that the use of virtual technology is likely permanently changing the landscape of civil litigation, including depositions, mediation, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Even civil jury trials, at least in the near term and during the pandemic, are being conducted virtually, either by private agreement, or through the courts, as is occurring in Texas and most recently in Florida with its pilot virtual trial program in five of its trial courts. While it is necessary at present for the parties to consent to a virtual trial, courts may ultimately compel the parties’ participation. Regardless, litigants and their counsel are well advised to understand the complexities and manner of a virtual trial. Seasoned trial attorneys have long experienced and are comfortable with virtual depositions bringing distant counsel, parties and witnesses together through technology to present testimony. The use of virtual technology as a means for court arguments and hearings, mediation, and alternative dispute resolution, while novel and emerging as the new normal, is territory where a comfort level can be achieved. And while distinctions most assuredly exist, recent experience has demonstrated that court arguments, mediations and depositions can be conducted effectively remotely and virtually. Legal issues certainly do remain in the context of the deposition of parties to a civil action regarding whether a lawyer’s physical presence in the same room with a party-witness can be demanded, and whether courts would compel a virtual deposition during the COVID-19 pandemic where such physical presence of a party and their attorney could not be achieved. Undoubtedly these issues will be resolved, likely sooner than later, given the scope of the pandemic in certain areas. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Andrew F. Susko, Robert G. Devine and Daniel J. Ferhat Mr. Susko may be contacted at suskoa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Ferhat may be contacted at ferhatd@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Edward Beitz and William Taylor Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers as a "Lawyer of the Year"

    August 31, 2020 —
    White and Williams is proud to announce that Edward Beitz and William Taylor have been recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practices in Philadelphia. Ed was named in the area of Medical Malpractice and Bill was named in Construction Law. "Lawyer of the Year" recognitions are awarded to individual lawyers with extremely high overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic location. Ed is a member of the Healthcare Group and focuses his practice on medical malpractice defense, defending doctors, nurses, physician assistants and hospitals at the trial and appellate court levels, as well as general liability matters. He has successfully defended numerous medical malpractice cases at trial involving complex issues of the human anatomy, such as cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, nursing care, obstetrical complications, nerve injury and vascular injury. Ed has authored briefs on appellate issues in healthcare and coverage matters to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the New Jersey Appellate Division and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Reprinted courtesy of Edward Beitz, White and Williams and William Taylor, White and Williams Mr. Beitz may be contacted at beitze@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of