• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Alberta Virginia housing expert witness Alberta Virginia low-income housing expert witness Alberta Virginia production housing expert witness Alberta Virginia tract home expert witness Alberta Virginia industrial building expert witness Alberta Virginia institutional building expert witness Alberta Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Alberta Virginia multi family housing expert witness Alberta Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Alberta Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Alberta Virginia condominiums expert witness Alberta Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Alberta Virginia casino resort expert witness Alberta Virginia office building expert witness Alberta Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Alberta Virginia townhome construction expert witness Alberta Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Alberta Virginia custom home expert witness Alberta Virginia condominium expert witness Alberta Virginia retail construction expert witness Alberta Virginia parking structure expert witness Alberta Virginia
    Alberta Virginia expert witnesses fenestrationAlberta Virginia structural concrete expertAlberta Virginia construction claims expert witnessAlberta Virginia expert witness roofingAlberta Virginia construction scheduling expert witnessAlberta Virginia defective construction expertAlberta Virginia concrete expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Alberta, 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 Alberta 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
    Tidewater Builders Association
    Local # 4854
    2117 Smith Ave
    Chesapeake, VA 23320

    Alberta Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Peninsula Housing & Builders Association
    Local # 4844
    760 McGuire Pl
    Newport News, VA 23601

    Alberta Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Southside VA
    Local # 4863
    10300 Corporate Road
    Petersburg, VA 23805

    Alberta Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    New River Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 4837
    PO Box 2010
    Christiansburg, VA 24068

    Alberta Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders & Associates of Southern VA
    Local # 4829
    PO Box 10178 Ste 28
    Danville, VA 24543
    Alberta Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association
    Local # 4881
    1626 Apperson Dr
    Salem, VA 24153

    Alberta Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Central VA
    Local # 4827
    20334 Timberlake Rd Ste 3
    Lynchburg, VA 24502

    Alberta Virginia Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Alberta Virginia

    First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    Georgia Supreme Court Says Construction Defects Can Be an “Occurrence”

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    Housing Inventory Might be Distorted by Pocket Listings

    New California Employment Laws Affect the Construction Industry for 2019

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders

    Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence

    Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1

    Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

    California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    The Leaning Tower of San Francisco

    House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

    Anti-Concurrent, Anti-Sequential Causation Clause Precludes Coverage

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    Couple Perseveres to Build Green

    Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Housing Bill Threatened by Rift on Help for Disadvantaged

    Nebraska’s Prompt Pay Act for 2015

    Contractor’s Charge Of Improvements To Real Property Not Required For Laborers To Have Lien Rights

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    Assignment of Construction Defect Claims Not Covered

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

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

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

    John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake

    University of California Earthquake Report Provides List of Old Concrete Buildings in LA

    Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

    Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

    Construction Workers Unearth Bones

    New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement

    Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California

    Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier
    Corporate Profile


    The Alberta, 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 more than 25 years 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
    Alberta, Virginia

    Alaska District Court Sets Aside Rulings Under New Administration’s EO 13795

    May 06, 2019 —
    On March 29, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued two separate rulings that reversed and set aside energy and environmental decisions made by the current administration, which had revoked decisions made in these same matters by the prior administration. The cases are League of Conservation Voters, et al., v. Trump (concerning the development of oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)) and Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, et al., v. Bernhardt, Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior (which concerns a Land Exchange that would facilitate the construction of a road between two remote Alaska communities when that road would traverse parts of a designated national wilderness). In the League of Conservation Voters matter, the District Court held that the President’s Executive Order 13795 (released on April 28, 2017), which purported to revoke President Obama’s decisions to withdraw certain OCS tracts from oil and gas exploration and development, was unlawful because it was not authorized by Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). In 2015 and 2016, President Obama issued Presidential Memorandums and an Executive Order withdrawing these particular tracts. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Trial Court's Award of Contractual Fees to Public Adjuster Overturned

    June 03, 2019 —
    A judgment awarding the public adjuster his compensation for work performed under contract was remanded for further proceedings by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Joslin v Ota Camp-Makibaka Ass'n, 2019 Haw. App. LEXIS 155 (Haw. Ct. App. April 5, 2019). A fire destroyed the homeowners' residence on September 19, 2013. The property was subject to the bylaws of the Association of Apartment Owners of Ota Camp. The Association had a policy with Alterra Excess & Surplus Insurance Company and submitted a claim for all units damaged in the fire. The Association's adjuster came the following day to inspect the site. Separately, Robert Joslin, public adjuster, entered a contract with the homeowners to adjust their claim in exchange for twelve-percent of any insurance proceeds obtained. Over the next several months Joslin pursued insurance proceeds from Alterra on behalf of the homeowners. On December 18, 2013, Joslin filed a complaint with the Insurance Division arguing that Alterra had failed to timely make payments on the claim. On February 10, 2014, Alterra's third party administrator, Engle Martin & Associates, sent a check to Joslin for $231,940 made out to the Association, the homeowners and Joslin. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

    May 27, 2019 —
    Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . . Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al In this case, English, a general contractor, entered into a contract for Quality Assurance (QA) functions with RK&K, the defendant, on a contract English entered into with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Needless to say, because this would not be a post at Musings otherwise, there were issues with the QA performed by RK&K leading to additional costs for English to correct certain work that did not comply with the contract documents between VDOT and English. English sued for breach of contract based upon a term sheet, signed by the parties, from RK&K that required RK&K to indemnify English for claims by VDOT that related to RK&K’s work (the English Term Sheet). RK&K moved to dismiss the complaint based upon a different term sheet, also signed by the parties, which stated that RK&K could not be held responsible for English’s failure to perform pursuant to the contract documents (the RK&K Term Sheet). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    February 11, 2019 —
    These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:
    The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    July 08, 2019 —
    As federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO. Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2] A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at

    Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

    April 10, 2019 —
    In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983). In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id. The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Cronin may be contacted at

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    May 01, 2019 —
    Sometimes you can see a train wreck coming a mile away. The next case, Design Built Systems v. Sorokine, Court of Appeal for the First District, Case Nos. A151264 and A152059 (February 26, 2019), is one of those cases. It also happens to read like a Tolstoy novel. The Beginning of the Train Wreck Alexei Sorokine and Elena Koudriavtseva, husband and wife, owned a single family home in San Rafael, California. Sorokine had acquired the house prior to his marriage to Koudriavtseva. In 2010, he traveled to Russia and, for reasons unexplained, has not been able to return. Following a landslide on the property in 2006, Sorokine entered into a construction contract with Design Built Systems to design and build a series of retaining walls. DBS was also retained to remedy a stop work notice issued by the City of San Rafael following work performed by others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

    June 10, 2019 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, deciding that there was no breach of the policy for failure to pay for flood damage when the insured failed to obtain a policy under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 570 Smith St. Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co. Inc., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1773 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 4, 2019). The insured's property in Brooklyn was insured by Seneca. Included in the policy was flood coverage in the amount of $1 million with a $25,000 deductible. While the policy was in effect, Hurricane Sandy hit, damaging the property. Plaintiffs timely filed a claim seeking reimbursement of up to policy limits. Seneca paid only $35,883 and later made an additional payment of $33,015. The insured sued for, among other things, breach of the policy for failure to properly indemnify for the losses. Seneca moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the breach of policy claims. Seneca pointed out that the "Other Insurance" provision in the Flood Coverage Endorsement of the policy stated that if the loss was eligible to be covered under a NFIP policy, but there was no such policy in effect, the insurer would only pay for the amount of loss in excess of the maximum limit payable for flood damage under the policy. The maximum NFIP coverage was $500,000. The insured's loss caused by flood was less than $500,000. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at