BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness commercial buildingsAshburn Virginia construction expert witness public projectsAshburn Virginia OSHA expert witness constructionAshburn Virginia consulting general contractorAshburn Virginia hospital construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction defect 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


    S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.

    Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

    Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

    Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

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

    Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

    China Home Glut May Worsen as Developers Avoid Price Drop

    CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

    Creating a Custom Home Feature in the Great Outdoors

    SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

    Hake Law Attorneys Join National Law Firm Wilson Elser

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Goldman Veteran Said to Buy Mortgages After Big Short

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    Solar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner Mongolia

    The Argument for Solar Power

    Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

    Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    General Liability Alert: A Mixed Cause of Action with Protected and Non-Protected Activity Not Subject to Anti-SLAPP Motion

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers

    The Ghosts of Projects Past

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    Structural Failure of Precast-Concrete Span Sets Back Sydney Metro Job

    Reminder: Always Order a Title Search for Your Mechanic’s Lien

    Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines

    Building Recovery Comes to Las Vegas, Provides Relief

    Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages

    Are Construction Defect Laws a Factor in Millennials Home Buying Decisions?

    Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details

    Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees

    Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 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

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    June 13, 2018 —
    When two competing experts disagreed on the cause of the loss, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurer. Garcia v. Firs Community Ins. Co., Fla. App. LEXIS 4237 (Fla. Ct. App. March 28, 2018). Garcia, the homeowner, discovered water damage in his home, allegedly due to a roof leak. Garcia notified his insurer, First Community Insurance Company. A forensic engineer, Ivette Acosta, was retained by First Community to inspect the property. After the inspection, coverage was denied. The homeowner's policy covered direct loss to property only if the loss was a physical loss. Loss caused by ""rain snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building was excluded unless a covered peril first damaged the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." Loss caused by wear and tear, marring, or deterioration was also excluded. 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

    Court Adopts Magistrate's Recommendation to Deny Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion in Collapse Case

    June 06, 2018 —
    The district court accepted the magistrate's recommended ruling denying the insurer's motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims in a case involving collapse. Jang v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51880 (D. Conn. March 27, 2018). After purchase of their home, the insureds' inspector found large cracks in the foundation. Liberty denied coverage, contending that the basement wall was collapsing due to settling earth or movement. The insureds' expert later found the foundation had cracks from the oxidation of iron sulfide minerals in the foundation's concrete. The insureds sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practice Act and the Unfair Trade Practices Act. 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

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    March 22, 2018 —
    Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
    • What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?
    • The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.
    Relevant Sections:
    • A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201
    • 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2
    AIA:
    • Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.
    • Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies

    August 14, 2018 —
    According to W. Matthew Bryant of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, the Ohio Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not a general contractor's commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance policy may provide coverage for damage caused by a subcontractor's defective construction work. Bryant explained the status quo in Ohio: “Since 2012, Ohio has followed the rule that a CGL policy would not cover damage caused by a contractor to the contractor's own work.” That could change depending on how the Ohio Supreme Court rules in an upcoming case: “The Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether to affirm or overturn Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., 77 N.E.3d 538 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) ("ONU"), an Ohio Court of Appeals decision holding that CGL coverage may exist for property damage caused by faulty work performed by the subcontractor of an insured general contractor.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

    July 31, 2018 —
    In Davison v. Debest Plumbing, Inc., 416 P.3d 943 (Ida. 2018), the Supreme Court of Idaho addressed the issue of whether plaintiffs who provided actual notice of a defective condition, but not written notice as stated in the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act (NORA), Idaho Code §§ 6-2501 to 6-2504, et. seq., substantially complied with the act and if the plaintiffs’ notice was sufficient to bring suit. Section 6-2503 of the NORA states that, “[p]rior to commencing an action against a construction professional for a construction defect, the claimant shall serve written notice of claim on the construction professional. The notice of claim shall state that the claimant asserts a construction defect claim against the construction professional and shall describe the claim in reasonable detail sufficient to determine the general nature of the defect.” Any action not complying with this requirement should be dismissed without prejudice. The court held that the defendant’s actual notice of the defect was sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the NORA and, thus, the plaintiffs’ action complied with the NORA. In Davison, Scott and Anne Davison hired general contractor Gould Custom Builders (Gould) to remodel a vacation home in McCall, Idaho. Gould subcontracted out the plumbing work to Debest Plumbing (Debest). This work included installing a bathtub. When the Davisons arrived at their home for the first time on July 25, 2013, they noticed a leak from the subject bathtub. The Davisons contacted Gould and, the next morning, Gil Gould arrived with a Debest employee to inspect the home. In addition to inspecting the home, the Debest employee repaired the leak and helped Gould remove some water-damaged material. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLP
    Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

    Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules

    May 30, 2018 —
    On May 3, 2018, Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 899 into law, officially making it Act 389. Act 389 modifies O.C.G.A. § 13-10-4 and § 36-91-23 relating to public works bidding and contracts of state and local governments, respectively. Both sections are modified in the same bill because they contain the same language. The bill prohibits the disqualification of bidders based upon lack of previous experience with the project’s desired construction delivery method. Before the modifications, the code protected a contractor from disqualification only for lack of previous experience on a job of comparable size. After the modification, the law expands to prohibit disqualification based on lack of previous experience with comparable job size and lack of previous experience with the construction delivery method. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    March 22, 2018 —

    A lienor needs to record its construction lien within 90 days of its final furnishing date. This final furnishing date excludes punchlist, warranty, or the lienor’s own corrective work. A lien recorded outside of the 90-day window will be deemed invalid.

    The opinion in In re: Jennerwein, 309 B.R. 385 (M.D. Fla. 2004) provides a good discussion of this 90-day window. This matter dealt with a debtor / owner’s bankruptcy where the owner was contesting the validity of a construction lien by its pool contractor. The owner contended that the lienor’s lien was recorded outside of this 90-day window thus rendering the lien invalid. The bankruptcy court was determining the validity of the lien.

    In this matter, the owner hired a swimming pool contractor to construct a pool. On October 25, 2002, the pool contractor installed pavers around the pool. After this was performed, the pool contractor realized the owner was unable to obtain the financing to pay for the pool. As a result, the pool contractor ceased doing any more improvements. But, neither the pool contractor nor the owner terminated the contract. Then, on November 27, 2002, the pool contractor sent a supervisor to the property to inspect the pool (work-in-place), the pool equipment, the installed pavers, made a list of the unfinished work, and remove any debris. On January 27, 2003, the pool contractor recorded its lien.

    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

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    February 28, 2018 —
    Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of