BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia condominiums building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia architecture expert witnessAshburn Virginia eifs expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessesAshburn Virginia expert witnesses fenestrationAshburn Virginia construction expert testimonyAshburn Virginia architectural engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia ada design expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert 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".


    Building Expert 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.


    Building Expert Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Northern Virginia Building Industry Association
    Local # 4840
    3901 Centerview Dr Suite E
    Chantilly, VA 20151

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

    The Top of Virginia Builders Association
    Local # 4883
    1182 Martinsburg Pike
    Winchester, VA 22603

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Shenandoah Valley Builders Association
    Local # 4848
    PO Box 1286
    Harrisonburg, VA 22803

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Piedmont Virginia Building Industry Association
    Local # 4890
    PO Box 897
    Culpeper, VA 22701

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Fredericksburg Area Builders Association
    Local # 4830
    3006 Lafayette Blvd
    Fredericksburg, VA 22408

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Augusta Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 4804
    PO Box 36
    Waynesboro, VA 22980

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
    Local # 4809
    PO Box 7743
    Charlottesville, VA 22906

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10


    Building Expert News and Information
    For Ashburn Virginia


    Massachusetts Couple Seek to Recuse Judge in Construction Defect Case

    Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

    Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

    $6 Million in Punitive Damages for Chinese Drywall

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Don’t Forget to Mediate the Small Stuff

    Digitalizing the Construction Site – Interview with Tenderfield’s Jason Kamha

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    UCP Buys Citizen Homes

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    Senator Ray Scott Introduced a Bill to Reduce Colorado’s Statute of Repose for Construction Defect Actions to Four Years

    Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

    Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

    Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners

    Home Prices in U.S. Rose 0.3% in August From July, FHFA Says

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

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

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Differences in Types of Damages Matter

    Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

    Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    Canada Cooler Housing Market Boosts Poloz’s Soft Landing

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

    Assert a Party’s Noncompliance of Conditions Precedent with Particularity

    Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    Texas Jury Awards $5.3 Million to Company Defamed by Union: Could it work in Pennsylvania?

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt

    Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

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

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Modular Homes Test Energy Efficiency Standards

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    South Carolina Couple Must Arbitrate Construction Defect Claim

    June 28, 2013 —
    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has rejected a claim by Sun City property owners that they were not bound by the arbitration clause in their purchase agreement. Roger and Mary Jo Carlson brought the claim against Del Webb Communities and Pulte Homes. About 140 homeowners are alleging problems in the community. According to the court, the Carlsons will have to go through arbitration with the companies over the alleged stucco defects to their home. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    September 17, 2015 —
    If you’re a public works contractor in California you’re familiar with prevailing wages. The Prevailing Wage Law, a Depression era law designed to encourage the hiring of local labor, sets a minimum wage that employers must pay to workers on public works projects. But because the Prevailing Wage Law sets a floor on wages it also limits the opportunity for lesser-skilled workers to gain experience. To address this, the Prevailing Wage Law permits contractors to pay apprentices a lower “apprentice wage” if the apprentice is enrolled in a state-approved apprenticeship program and requires contractors who hire workers in an “apprenticeable craft or trade” to hire a certain number of apprentices. But are particular apprentices required to be hired depending on the type of work being performed? In Henson v. C. Overaa & Company, Case No A139966 (June 29, 2015), the California Court of Appeals for the First District held that apprentices are required to be hired based on the craft or trade of the journeymen performing work not based on the type of work being performed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    December 20, 2012 —
    The Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation. There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it. After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors. Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations. Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.” In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.” The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

    July 30, 2015 —
    As those that read this construction blog on a regular basis know, I became a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator a few years ago. I did so because I believe that mediation as a form of alternate dispute resolution is in most cases a much better alternative to resolve a construction dispute than litigation. While I still act as counsel to construction companies participating in mediations (and have posted my thoughts on this topic on numerous occasions), working with the General District Courts of Virginia and acting as a mediator for private disputes has given me an interesting perspective on how the flexibility and process of mediation can resolve disputes in a way that formal court litigation or other forms of ADR may not. After almost 4 years of working with the general district courts here in Virginia and working with private companies and individuals to resolve their disputes, I have come to the conclusion that often the real issue is not the money (though that is the big one) but some other intangible issue, whether an emotional one or some conflict of personality or even what may seem in hindsight to be a minor miscommunication. Because of this fact of life, and the life of a mediator, the ability to “vent” in the confidential setting of a mediation and in a way that no Court with rules of evidence could allow can go a long way toward a resolution of the dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    July 09, 2014 —
    On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the First District Court of Appeal in the case of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (Case No. S208173). The issue in the Beacon case is whether the architects of a residential project owe a duty to future third party homeowners under SB800 and common law. In 2011, Judge Richard Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court sustained demurrers of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and HKS Architects to the homeowners association complaint without leave to amend. The homeowners association appealed and the First District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Kramer, ruling that the homeowners could assert SB800 and common law claims against the architects of the project even in the absence of privity of contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
    Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

    Lack of Workers Holding Back Building

    May 10, 2013 —
    Builders are hiring again, or at least they’re trying to. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, many of the workers who were laid off during the construction bust have gone on to work in other areas. John Nunan of Unger Construction told the Times that “we’re starting to see spot shortages of labor.” One problem is that despite the boom, wages haven’t risen. Rising costs for materials and land have put an additional squeeze on builders. One building supervisor noted that during the boom, he was making $26 an hour and entry level workers $17. Now he earns $16 an hour. From bust to recovery was about five years, and its labor pool could not just wait those years. Industry representatives told the Times that it has created a perception that construction is not a stable form of employment. Brian Turmail of the Associated General Contractors of America cited “pretty consistent news coverage about the fact that there are no jobs in construction.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed

    December 15, 2016 —
    Addressing a host of issues on appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against the insurer for property damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Henriquez, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11391 (Tex. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016), withdrawn and substituted by 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12766 (Tex. Ct. app. Dec. 1, 2016). The insureds alleged property damage to their home caused by the hurricane. The roof was damaged, resulting in interior water damage. Sheetrock, exterior bricks, windows, walls cabinets and insulation throughout the entire home were damaged. The insureds also alleged that the home shifted during the storm, causing the foundation to not be level and the ceilings and walls to crack. Personal property within the dwelling was also damaged. 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

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    September 22, 2016 —
    In Washington, RCW 19.122 (the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act or “Call Before You Dig” statute) provides for the protection of underground utilities. The statute was recently updated in 2013 and provides that homeowners and contractors must call “811” to schedule a “utility locate” prior to commencing any excavation. Failure to do so can result in steep penalties, as well as a mandatory fee award for the prevailing party. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
    Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com