• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia expert witness concrete failureAshburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAshburn Virginia building envelope expert witnessAshburn Virginia building code expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness commercial buildingsAshburn Virginia construction scheduling expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness windows
    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

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Good Ole Duty to Defend

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy

    Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

    Workers Hurt in Casino Floor Collapse

    Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale

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

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

    Additional Insured Obligations and the Underlying Lawsuit

    Two-Part Series on Condominium Construction Defect Issues

    Defeating the Ten-Year Statute of Repose For Latent Construction Defects

    Baby Boomer Housing Deficit Coming?

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    Housing Starts Rebound in U.S. as Inflation Eases: Economy

    Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

    Engineer TRC Fends Off Lawsuits After Merger

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

    Housing Prices Up through Most of Country

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

    Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Consumer Confidence in U.S. Increases More Than Forecast

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

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

    Maryland Court Affirms Condo Association’s Right to Sue for Construction Defects

    District Court's Ruling Affirmed in TCD v American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

    Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    "Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Committeewoman Requests Refund on Attorney Fees after Failed Legal Efforts

    To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

    Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

    New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    #2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder
    Corporate Profile


    The Ashburn, Virginia Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    October 27, 2016 —
    I have a judgment against another entity. Now what? I want to briefly talk about this “now what?” in the context of the recent decision in MYD Marine Distributor, Inc. v. International Paint, Ltd., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2364a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Although this case is not a construction case, it poses an interesting issue for any entity that has a judgment entered against it (known as the judgment debtor) while it is contemporaneously the plaintiff and pursuing monetary damages in an unrelated case or cases. This case also presents an avenue for any judgment creditor to pursue in the event other post-judgment collection efforts are unsuccessful. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point

    October 21, 2015 —
    Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It's the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.1increase click area But that's less interesting than what just happened in the U.S. To appreciate what's going on there, you need to understand the capacity factor. That's the percentage of a power plant's maximum potential that's actually achieved over time. Consider a solar project. The sun doesn't shine at night and, even during the day, varies in brightness with the weather and the seasons. So a project that can crank out 100 megawatt hours of electricity during the sunniest part of the day might produce just 20 percent of that when averaged out over a year. That gives it a 20 percent capacity factor. One of the major strengths of fossil fuel power plants is that they can command very high and predictable capacity factors. The average U.S. natural gas plant, for example, might produce about 70 percent of its potential (falling short of 100 percent because of seasonal demand and maintenance). But that's what's changing, and it's a big deal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Randall, Bloomberg

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    April 09, 2014 —
    Citigroup Inc. (C) agreed to pay $1.13 billion to settle claims from mortgage-bond investors as it seeks to curb liabilities tied to the financial crisis. It took a $100 million first-quarter charge. The 68 securitization trusts covered by the settlement issued a combined $59.4 billion in mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2008, the New York-based bank said yesterday in a statement. The agreement covers 18 investors represented by Gibbs & Bruns LLP and trustees have until June 30 to accept the deal, the law firm said in a separate statement. The accord must be approved by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank, is resolving a portion of liabilities tied to mortgages it packaged and sold to investors in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the two largest U.S. lenders, previously agreed to multibillion-dollar settlements with Gibbs & Bruns clients. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dakin Campbell, Bloomberg
    Mr. Campbell may be contacted at

    Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

    November 08, 2017 —
    On October 18, 2017, in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, the Connecticut Supreme Court certified four issues for appeal, which relate to trigger, allocation, pollution exclusions, and the occupational disease exclusion in the context of asbestos bodily injury claims. This post identifies the issues the Connecticut Supreme Court will decide on appeal and sets forth the Appellate Court’s ruling on each issue. Issue 1: Whether a “continuous trigger” theory of coverage applies to asbestos-related disease claims and whether expert medical testimony on the timing of injury should be precluded The Appellate Court applied a continuous trigger, and found that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. Reprinted courtesy of Ciaran Way, White and Williams LLP and Robert Walsh, White and Williams LLP Ms. Way may be contacted at Mr. Walsh may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Zinc in London Climbs for Second Day Before U.S. Housing Data

    January 21, 2015 —
    Zinc rose for a second day and copper held gains before data showing increased housing construction in the U.S. and a stimulus decision by the European Central Bank. Zinc advanced as much as 0.8 percent. Housing starts in the U.S., the second-largest metals consumer, climbed 1.2 percent in December from the previous month, according to a Bloomberg survey, after falling 1.6 percent in November. The ECB will announce a 550 billion-euro ($636 billion) government-bond purchase program this week, according to 93 percent of respondents in a separate survey. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alex Davis, Bloomberg
    Mr. Davis may be contacted at

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    October 22, 2014 —
    It has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements. Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts. Commercial Subcontracts Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to: (a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and (b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation. Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply. Residential Subcontracts The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work). Owner-Contractor Agreements The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence. Design Professional Agreements The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts. Conclusion In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions). California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable. Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

    September 22, 2016 —
    Managing Partner Patti Santelle and Partner Gale White were among the 25 women recognized by The Legal Intelligencer as "Top Women In Law" for 2016. The honor shines a light on the outstanding work being done by female attorneys across Pennsylvania who are making strides to push the legal profession forward for women. Honorees were selected by The Legal, with the help of suggestions from the legal community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

    Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

    November 13, 2013 —
    The hailstorm might have spared homes in New Jersey, but the contractor didn’t. Marcin Gradziel entered a guilty plea when he was accused of filing fraudulent insurance claims for homes in New Jersey. In order to fool the inspectors from the insurance agency, after homeowners agreed to their pitch, Mr. Gradziel would damage their homes. After admitting this in court, Mr. Gradziel has now been sentenced to seven years in prison. His former employers, Precision Building, has gone out of business after paying restitution to the defrauded insurers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of