BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia expert witness structural engineerAshburn Virginia construction expertsAshburn Virginia testifying construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAshburn Virginia ada design expert witnessAshburn Virginia OSHA expert witness constructionAshburn Virginia architectural engineering expert witness
    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


    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Insurer's Withheld Discovery Must be Produced in Bad Faith Case

    Cyber Security Insurance and Design Professionals

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    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

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    State Farm to Build Multi-Use Complex in Dallas Area

    Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    HP Unveils Cheaper, 3-D Printing System to Spur Sales

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases

    This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

    What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

    Philadelphia Voters to Consider Best Value Bid Procurment

    No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

    Limitation on Coverage for Payment of Damages Creates Ambiguity

    Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

    New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    New Iowa Law Revises Construction Defects Statute of Repose

    Construction Defect Scam Tied to Organized Crime?

    Chinese Lead $92 Billion of U.S. Home Sales to Foreigners

    Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    Bound by Group Builders, Federal District Court Finds No Occurrence

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy

    California Appeals Court Remands Fine in Late Completion Case

    Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker

    Granting Stay, Federal Court Reviews Construction Defect Coverage in Hawaii

    But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    Mexico’s Construction Industry Posts First Expansion Since 2012

    Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected

    Home Prices on the Rise
    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 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing 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

    Jury Instruction That Fails to Utilize Concurrent Cause for Property Loss is Erroneous

    March 22, 2018 —

    The Florida District Court reversed erroneous jury instructions that adopted the efficient proximate cause doctrine in determining whether the insurer was responsible for the insureds’ collapsed roof. Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 561 (Fla. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

    The insureds filed a claim for their damaged roof, contending that the damage was caused by a hailstorm. Federal National Insurance Company denied the claim based upon exclusions for “wear and tear, marring, deterioration;” “faulty, inadequate or defective design;” “neglect;” “existing damage;” or “weather conditions.”

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

    February 28, 2018 —
    Introduction Arizona’s trustee’s sale statutory scheme provides for the waiver of all defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale that: (i) are not raised prior to the sale, and (ii) do not result in an injunction against the sale going forward. See A.R.S. § 33-811(C). In other words, if you have an objection to a trustee’s sale, you must seek and obtain an injunction prior to the sale or your objection will be waived. Arizona’s Court of Appeals previously held that notwithstanding this statutory waiver, “common law” defenses to repayment of the debt survive a non-judicial foreclosure even in the absence of an injunction prior to the sale. See Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses, 235 Ariz. 21, 326 P.3d 288 (Ct. App. 2014). Our analysis of the Morgan decision can be found here. In Zubia v. Shapiro, 243 Ariz. 412, 408 P.3d 1248 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court revisited the issue of what claims survive a trustee’s sale, and clarified that if a person fails to enjoin a trustee’s sale prior to its occurrence, then that person waives any and all damages claims dependent upon a trustee’s sale. That person does not, however, waive damages claims that are independent of the sale. Thus, determining what types of claims are “dependent” versus “independent” of a trustee’s sale is of critical importance to lenders and borrowers alike. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

    2018 Spending Plan Boosts Funding for Affordable Housing

    April 11, 2018 —
    On March 23, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, a $1.3 trillion spending package that includes a 12.5% increase in low-income housing tax credit allocations over the next four years, along with funding increases for several affordable housing programs. This is welcome news to affordable housing developers who have been facing funding gaps as a result of reductions in the corporate tax rate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in late 2017, which led to reduced pricing from equity investors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Emily Bias, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    July 02, 2018 —
    Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that liability insurers are obligated to cover negligent supervision, hiring, and retention claims against employers resulting from the intentional acts of their employees. The case, Liberty Surplus Insurance v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction, case no. S236765 (2018), involved an insurance coverage dispute between a construction company, Ledesma & Meyer Construction (“L&M”), and its insurers, Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (“Liberty”) and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp (“Liberty Surplus”). Liberty was L&M’s primary insurer, while Liberty Surplus had the excess policy. L&M had contracted with the San Bernardino Unified School District to renovate a school building while the school was still in session. In a separate action, another court found that an L&M employee sexually assaulted a 13-year-old student while working at the project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    May 24, 2018 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Melissa Dewey Brumback. Melissa is a construction law attorney with Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, North Carolina. Aside from the fact that she is a UNC grad and fan, she’s okay! In 2017, as it does every ten years, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) updated most of its standard form contract documents, including the A201 General Conditions. This cycle, the contract changes are evolutionary in nature, not revolutionary. Even so, it is crucial to know the changes to avoid making a fatal mistake that could cost you money on a construction project. In reverse order, the top 10 changes you need to know include: # 10: Differing Site Conditions Prior editions of the A201 provided that upon encountering differing site conditions, the Contractor was to promptly provide notice to the Owner and Architect, before the conditions are disturbed, and in no event later than 21 days after the conditions were first observed. A201–2017 shortens the time for notice from 21 to 14 days. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    July 11, 2018 —
    The Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
    Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Ms. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    June 06, 2018 —
    The former president of New York contractor LPCiminelli—the firm that has been at the center of an alleged pay-to-play scheme playing out since 2016 when he and two other executives were indicted—got a reprieve as federal prosecutors said they were dropping all charges against him, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and making false statements to federal agents, according to a June 1 court filing. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    July 02, 2018 —
    In prior articles, I discussed the benefit of workers compensation immunity for contractors. Arguing around workers compensation immunity under the “intentional tort exception” is really hard – borderline impossible, in my opinion. Nevertheless, injured workers still make an attempt to sue a contractor under the intentional tort exception to workers compensation immunity. Most fail based on the seemingly impossible standard the injured worker must prove to establish the intentional tort exception. A less onerous standard (although certainly onerous), as a recent case suggests, appears to be an injured worker suing a co-employee for the injury. 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