• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel 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 institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia delay claim expert witnessAshburn Virginia architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAshburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAshburn Virginia defective construction expertAshburn Virginia construction project management expert witnessesAshburn Virginia building code 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

    Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

    Holding the Bag for Pre-Tender Defense Costs

    Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Here's How Much You Can Make by Renting Out Your Home

    Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

    Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

    California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

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

    Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

    Minimum Wage on Federal Construction Projects is $10.10

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    Two Texas Cities Top San Francisco for Property Investors

    School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem

    New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

    Colorado Introduces Construction Defect Bill for Commuter Communities

    The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

    Construction Delays for China’s Bahamas Resort Project

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Construction Industry on the Comeback, But It Won’t Be the Same

    Fracking Fears Grow as Oklahoma Hit by More Earthquakes Than California

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

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

    Commercial Construction Heating Up

    New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height

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

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

    New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)

    Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

    Are Housing Prices Poised to Fall in Denver?

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

    Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit

    Jobs Machine in U.S. Created More Than Burger Flippers Last Year

    Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

    Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse

    MGM Seeks to Demolish Harmon Towers

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

    Construction Defect Lawsuits May Follow Hawaii Condo Boom

    Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 4500 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

    Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    December 20, 2012 —
    The recently decided case of Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company (Colo. Ct. App. 10CA2638, October 25, 2012), confirms that absent specific exclusions in the policy, a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy covers damages to non-defective property arising from a builder’s own defective workmanship. Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. (“Colorado Pool”) was hired as a subcontractor to install a swimming pool at Founders Village Pool and Community Center (“Founders Village”) in Castle Rock, Colorado. After the concrete shell of the pool was placed, some of the rebar frame was found to be too close to the surface. Founders Village demanded that Colorado Pool remove and replace the pool, and Colorado Pool contacted its insurance carrier, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), with which Colorado Pool held a CGL policy. After inspecting the pool, Scottsdale’s claims adjuster stated that the insurance policy would cover losses associated with removing and replacing the pool. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
    Ms. Gassman can be contacted at

    CA Senate Report States Caltrans ‘Gagged and Banished’ its Critics

    August 06, 2014 —
    According to the Sacramento Bee, the California Senate’s latest report said that “at least nine top experts for the new $6.5 billion San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge” were “’gagged and banished’” after complaining “about substandard work by the Shanghai, China, firm that built much of the span.” According to the report, reported by the Sacramento Bee, Tony Anziano, Caltrans’ chief executive of the project, “removed or demoted quality-assurance and fabrication engineers who tried to force the contractor to fix cracked roadway welds.” The report did not evaluate the bridge’s quality or safety, however, it “called for greater openness in large construction projects, a review of the weld problems by independent experts, and an investigation of allegations that engineering decisions were made by non-engineers.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    May 03, 2017 —
    In breaking news this week, posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that “a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers’ potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn’t extend to products containing the carcinogen.” In its detailed analysis of the decision, LAW360 turned to Greg Podolak for his analysis. Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad “arising out of” language in exclusions. Otherwise, insureds could find themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related to a certain product, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Podolak may be contacted at

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    December 04, 2013 —
    The Medical Arts Hospital in Lamesa, Texas has settled a lawsuit against its general contractor, roofing contractor, and two insurance companies for $3.7 million, over alleged construction problems. Ray Stephens, president of the hospital’s board said, “we got enough to fix the major problems and that was our goal in the beginning.” With the settlement, the lawsuit has been dismissed by the court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

    May 10, 2013 —
    The latest building news out of New Hampshire is somewhat mixed. Yes, there has been an increase of seventeen percent in the value of future residential construction on the state. But that’s not enough to offset the general slide in the value of future construction overall. The New Hampshire Business Review reports that the state saw a four percent drop in the cost of planned construction, comparing March 2012 to March 2013. The total value of the drop was shared between the twelve percent drop in nonresidential construction and the fifty-two percent drop in infrastructure building, each of which were more than $4 million less than in the prior year. The rise in residential construction could not make up the loss in other areas. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

    June 06, 2011 —

    In a 26 to 16 vote, the Nevada Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 401, which extends the time limit for legal action over home construction defects. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Assembly member Marcus Conklin, Democrat of Las Vegas, said the bill was about “keeping the consumer whole.” However, Ira Hansen, Republican of Sparks, told the sun that suits are happening before contractors can make repairs. The bill would allow attorney fees even if repairs are made.

    Read the full story…

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

    Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s “Right to Repair Statutes”

    April 01, 2015 —
    Virtually all of the states in the country have "Right to Repair" statutes. We follow the various states legislatures to determine what trends or developments are occurring. For years, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, and Barger has prepared a compendium that provides the salient points of these Right to Repair statutes. In this extended BULLETIN we provide a discussion of important and very recent developments that are occurring in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Colorado. In Nevada, Governor Brian Sandoval very recently signed The Homeowner Protections Act of 2015, representing a massive transformation to Nevada's Right to Repair Act in the builder's favor, including but not limited to removal of the attorney fees provision as part of claimant's damages. In Arizona, Governor Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2578 in March 2015, amending Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-1361 et. Seq. by eliminating a homeowner’s statutory opportunity to recover attorney and expert fees and providing a builder the right to repair the alleged defects. In Florida, Bill 87 proposes to shorten the statute of limitations, requires more detail in the Homeowner's notice of defects, and allows a builder to use a prior settlement in lieu of repair as an affirmative defense against subsequent claims. In Colorado, lawmakers are proposing to place additional conditions in front of an HOA board before filing suit and require alternative dispute resolution for HOA Condominium Defect Claims even if the requirement no longer exists at the time the claim is brought. NEVADA: GOVERNOR SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIES NEVADA'S RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT WITH THE SIGNING OF ASSEMBLY BILL 125 Nevada's Right to Repair Act has been extensively modified by the signing of Assembly Bill 125 also known as the Homeowner Protections Act of 2015. The Act considerably revises Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statute ("NRS") governing construction defect actions. According to Governor Brian Sandoval, the signing of the first major bill of the legislative session in Nevada "discourages frivolous litigation and strengthens Nevada's rebounding housing market."1 Among other provisions, the Homeowner's Protection Act removes a claimant's ability to recover reasonable attorney fees as part of the claimant's damages, shortens the statutes of repose, defines the duty to defend, and prohibits a claimant from filing a notice of construction defects unless the claimant has submitted a claim under the homeowner's warranty and the insurer has denied the claim. Only claims that have been denied under the homeowner's warranty may be claimed. Additionally, the term "construction defect" is now defined as a defect "(1) which presents an unreasonable risk of injury to a person or property; or (2) which is not completed in a good and workmanlike manner and proximately causes physical damage to the resident or appurtenance." Critically, the Act now requires that the notice of construction defects (1) state in "specific detail" rather than reasonable detail, each defect, damage, and injury to each residence or appurtenance that is subject to the notice; (2) state the exact location of each defect, damage, and injury, rather than describe in reasonable detail the location of the defect; and (3) include a statement signed by the owner of the residence or appurtenance in the notice that the owner verifies that each defect, damage and injury exists in the residence or appurtenance. Although not every revision is set forth above, the passing of The Homeowner's Protection Act appears to be a colossal victory for builders as the majority of the revisions to NRS Chapter 40 are favorable to the builder while additional or heightened requirements have been placed upon homeowners who wish to bring a claim. The following two Right to Repair updates concern proposed bills that also seek to radically change the pre-claim construction defect landscape. ARIZONA: BUILDERS NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPAIR INSTEAD OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPAIR WHILE HOMEOWNERS NO LONGER HAVE A STATUTORY RIGHT TO ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPERT FEES In March 2015, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law House Bill 2578, revising key portions of the Right to Repair pursuant to the Purchaser Dwelling Act (Arizona Revised Statute ("A.R.S.") Section 12-1361 et. seq. Important categories of the Act affected by the new law include the builder's right to repair or replace, the process of repair or replacement, dwelling actions, and homeowners' association dwelling actions. Most notably, prior to filing a construction defect suit, or a "dwelling action" as defined in A.R.S. Section 12-1361 et. seq., a homeowner must provide written notice detailing the basis of a dwelling action and must allow the builder to repair or replace the alleged construction defects. Another significant revision includes the elimination of the prevailing homeowner's statutory right to reasonable attorney fees, witness fees and taxable costs in a dwelling action. Bill 2578 also revised the definitions of "Construction Codes," "Construction Defect," "Construction Professional," and "Material Deficiency." Homeowner Associations now must disclose additional information regarding the claim to its members and must show compliance with procedures set forth in the community documents. Clearly, Arizona's legislature is seeking to reduce the amount of frivolous construction defects suits with the elimination of a prevailing homeowner's right to reasonable attorney fees and expert fees. Moreover, the Legislature now provides builders in Arizona with the right to make repairs to alleged construction defects if they so choose. FLORIDA: FLORIDA GENERAL CONTRACTORS SEEK AGGRESSIVE AMENDMENT TO PRE-CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DEFECT PROCESS WITH BILL 87 Florida's Right to Repair Act, Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, may be extensively revised in the near future. With the help of the South Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, House of Representatives Bill 87 will be presented as an amendment to the Pre-Claim Construction Defect requirements set forth in Chapter 558. The proposed bill is aggressive and seeks to address issues in the current statute. These deficiencies have seemingly prevented construction defect claims from being resolved without the filing of a civil suit. Notably, the statute of limitations period for a property owner to file suit for construction defects would be shortened based upon the revision of the term "completion of a building or improvement" to include issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. Additionally, property owners would be subject to additional requirements for issuing a notice of claim, including specific identification of locations of each alleged construction defect as well as the specific provisions of the building code, project plans, project drawings, project specifications, or other documentation, information or authority that serve as the basis of the claim for each alleged construction defect. Perhaps most importantly, the bill provides that if a construction defect is settled by repairs offered by the contractor during the Chapter 558 claims process but the repairs fail to fully correct the defects and the owner or association then files suit because the issue was not resolved, the defendant may claim that the issue was previously resolved and the plaintiff owner may face sanctions. Even if the bill as proposed does not pass in its current form, on the heels of Nevada's Right to Repair Act overhaul, it may serve to encourage other states, including California, to take another look at their Right to Repair Act procedures. COLORADO: UPDATE FROM CGDRB SEPTEMBER 2014 BULLETIN: COLORADO PROPOSED LEGISLATION RE: HOA CONDOMINIUM DEFECT CLAIMS In September 2014, we provided an important discussion of potential significant tort reform legislation presented in Colorado regarding construction claims by homeowner associations for condominiums. This Bulletin serves as an update to that discussion as intense debate over legislative reform to provide condominium builders in Colorado more legal protections has heated up again. On October 13, 2014, the city of Lakewood became the first Colorado municipality to pass a “right to repair” measure with respect to common interest communities. The Lakewood measure gives builders a right to repair construction defects before homeowner associations take legal action and requires a homeowner majority approval before legal action is taken. On February 10, 2015, two bipartisan Senators introduced Senate Bill 177, a bill proposing changes to the prerequisites for a homeowner association to file a construction defect action under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. SB 177, if passed in its current form, would require:
    1. That when the governing documents of a common interest community require mediation or arbitration of a construction defect claim and the requirement is later amended or removed, mediation or arbitration is still required for a construction defect claim;
    2. That the mediation or arbitration take place in the judicial district in which the common interest community is located;
    3. That the arbitrator (1) be a neutral third party; (2) make certain disclosures before being selected; and (3) be selected as specified in the community's governing documents or, if not specified, in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act;
    4. That before a construction defect claim is filed on behalf of the homeowner association: (1) the parties must submit the matter to mediation; and (2) the board must give advance notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of the projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim, and must obtain the written consent of a majority of the unit owners.
    5. That the disclosures required prior to the purchase and sale of property in a common interest community a notice that the community's governing documents may require binding arbitration of certain disputes.
    As explained in our previous Bulletin, currently, in Colorado, homeowner association boards are only required to obtain two condominium owners’ consent to file a construction defect suit. Similar to SB 220, which proposed a number of the same requirements, SB 177 would likely have the potential effect of reducing the number of lawsuits filed against builders and decrease the treat of frivolous claims; and allow the parties an opportunity to resolve their issues short of litigation. On March 18, 2015, the Colorado Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology voted 6-2 to forward SB-177 to the full Senate with four minor amendments. The amendments provide:
    1. The homeowner association’s attorney can prepare the disclosures that must be presented to unit owners prior to filing a construction defect claim;
    2. Voting may be done by proxy;
    3. The parties must agree on an arbitrator. If they cannot agree, they may petition the court to appoint one. Preference will be given to the arbitrator designated in the community’s governing documents; and
    4. A different list of disclosure topics is required.
    Also introduced this year is SB 091, a bill to shorten the Colorado’s construction defect statute of repose to a homeowner from bringing an action after three years. On March 16, 2015, the Colorado Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs voted to pass SB 091 to the full Senate with two substantive amendments. The first amendment excludes any multifamily developments from being effected by the shortened statute of repose. The second amendment proposes the statute of repose only be shortened to five years, plus an additional year if the defect manifests in year five. Currently, in Colorado, if a homeowner does not discover a construction defect within six years of a house’s completion, the homeowner may forfeit all legal rights to seek repair. Again, SB 091 would protect builders from frivolous or untimely claims by homeowners. We will continue to monitor development of these bills and others that may be proposed in the future. If we can provide any further information concerning these developments or you are interested in receiving our compendium of the various right repair statutes please let us know. 1 As reported by KTVN-TV in Reno, Nevada: Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at Mr. Napper may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

    December 30, 2013 —
    The pop singer Rihanna has sued the former owners of her Los Angeles home and the firm that inspected it before her purchase alleging water intrusion problems that were supposed to be fixed before close of escrow. The lawsuit was filed under the singer’s legal name, Robyn Fenty. According to Gregory Pyfrom, the attorney for LaRocca Inspection Associates, he has tried to depose her over the last two years, without success. He is seeking $7,500 in compensation to his clients for the singer’s failure to schedule a deposition. Rihanna’s attorney, Miles Cooley, described this as “a smear campaign,” and claims that the parties had agreed not to depose her “until after the matter was mediated.” Mr. Cooley says that mediation has been delayed by Mr. Pyfrom’s vacation plans. LaRocca Inspection Associates has countersued Rihanna, claiming that if she had alerted them earlier to problems they would have performed an additional inspection. The judge in the case has now ordered that the parties agree to a date on which to depose Ms. Fenty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of