• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia construction project management expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia fenestration expert witnessAshburn Virginia architectural engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia architectural expert witnessAshburn Virginia multi family design expert witnessAshburn Virginia hospital construction 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

    NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

    Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

    Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes

    Another Smart Home Innovation: Remote HVAC Diagnostics

    Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse

    Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

    Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Confident about Construction Defect Bill

    Federal Interpleader Dealing with Competing Claims over Undisputed Payable to Subcontractor

    Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

    Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

    U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines

    UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

    PATH Station Designed by Architect Known for Beautiful Structures, Defects, and Cost Overruns

    Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage for Injury To Subcontractor's Employee

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York

    Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

    Haight Welcomes Elizabeth Lawley

    Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

    A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage

    Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

    Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

    Change #7- Contractor’s Means & Methods (law note)

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace

    Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss

    Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

    Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

    Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Tips for Contractors Who Want to Help Rebuild After the California Wildfires

    Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses
    Corporate Profile


    The Ashburn, Virginia Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Trump’s Infrastructure Weak

    June 21, 2017 —
    This past week was President Trump’s “Infrastructure Week.” A week dedicated, according to the White House’s official blog, “to addressing America’s crumbling infrastructure” and to try to build support for the President’s campaign promise to invest “at least” $1 trillion on improving the nation’s infrastructure. For the construction industry it was going to be an exciting week. Not only because it could mean new opportunities for the industry but from a policy perspective our nation’s infrastructure, which recently received a grade of D+ from the American Society of Engineers, is in dire need of investment. But Infrastructure Week ended up being more like Infrastructure Weak. No infrastructure bills were signed or introduced, no executive orders were issued, and no new departments or commissions were created, although at the end of the week President Trump promised to form a “council” and “office” to review the environmental permitting process. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    February 04, 2014 —
    What are your top construction building projects in North Carolina? Do you have a “short list”? Author Ralitsa Golemanova of JW Surety Bonds does, and she has the reasoning behind them. Ralista’s Top 5, which all “present a different facet of exceptional modern design and construction” are presented below. For her full commentary and some great pictures of the projects, check out her full article. Her list, in no particular order, includes: 1. The North Carolina Museum of Art’s West Building Expansion The 127,000 square-feet West Building Expansion of the North Carolina Museum of Arts won the 2011 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Honor Award for Architecture. The Building is largely made of aluminum panels. One of its specificities is that it does not have any windows. Instead, visibility is ensured through 360 skylights that allow delicate natural light to enter the inner galleries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback can be contacted at

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Nevada for Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

    April 03, 2013 —
    Methodically analyzing the damage claims, the federal district court largely denied the insurers' motions for summary judgment for coverage of construction defect claims. Big-D Constr. Corp. v. Take It for Granite Too, 2013 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 8377 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2013). Big-D was the general contractor for a remodeling project of International Gaming Technologies' (IGT) building. Big-D subcontracted with Take it for Granite Too (TIFGT) to install various tiling and stonework on the interior and exterior of the building. After TIFGT began its stonework, a stone tile fill from an exterior wall. Over the next several months and after completion of TIFGT's work, two additional stones fell from exterior walls. IGT directed Big-D to replace TIFGT's stonework on the walls. Big-D notified TIFGT and requested that it make immediate repairs. TIFGT did not respond and eventually went out of business. Experts opined that the cause of the stones falling was efflorescence between the tile and the wall. Efflorescence occurred when the stone started to deteriorate, spall, and become soft. It was caused by water entering through an open joint and getting behind the stone tile. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    March 01, 2012 —

    The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”

    While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”

    Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”

    In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.

    The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”

    The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.

    The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”

    The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”

    The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”

    The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    December 30, 2013 —
    In Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 WL 6237312 (Pa. Super. 2013), insured Indalex was sued in multiple underlying actions, filed in states other than Pennsylvania, alleging that Indalex defectively designed or manufactured windows and doors resulting in leaks causing damage beyond the Indalex product, including mold, wall cracks, and personal injuries. The complaints included strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and breach of contract causes of action. After Indalex’s primary CGL policies exhausted, Indalex filed a declaratory judgment action against its umbrella insurer National Union. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson
    Scott Patterson can be contacted at

    Homebuilder Confidence Takes a Beating

    October 21, 2013 —
    Homebuilder confidence dropped to fifty-five percent in October, the lowest percentage seen in the last four months. The score had been rising on the strength of renewed home sales. The current slump is attributed to increases in interest rates, which have made home purchases more expensive for prospective buyers, and the uncertainty of the budget struggle in Washington. John Stumpf, the chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo said that “home price appreciation remains strong and affordability remains excellent.” Mr. Strum has “guarded optimism” over the effects of the budget struggle. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Orders House to be Demolished or Relocated

    April 26, 2011 —

    Decision Affirmed in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate

    The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the trial court in Central Arkansas Foundation Homes, LLC v. Rebecca Choate. In the trial case, Central Arkansas Foundation Homes (CAFH) sought payment for a home built for Choate, while Choate alleged that the builders committed multiple construction defects including using the wrong foundation materials and positioning the house in the wrong direction.

    After the house was built, CAFH contacted Choate regarding payment, however, Choate alleged that the finished product did not match the contract. “ After CAFH completed construction, it obtained permanent home financing for Choate and tried to contact her to close the transaction. Choate did not respond until October 2005, when she sent CAFH a list of alleged construction defects, including that the house was facing in the wrong direction; that it was not built on a slab; and that the fireplace, garbage disposal, driveway, and storage area were missing. CAFH replied to Choate in writing, telling her that she had until January 6, 2006, to close on the house or CAFH would sell it. The correspondence enclosed worksheets showing that the amount Choate would owe at closing exceeded $94,000, which included interest that had accrued on the as-yet unpaid construction loan.”

    Initially, the court found in favor of CAFH. “On April 18, 2007, Choate’s attorney withdrew from representing her. Soon thereafter, CAFH’s attorney asked the court to set a final hearing on the case. The attorney purportedly sent Choate a letter by regular mail on May 15, 2007, advising her that the case was set for trial on July 9, 2007. Choate, however, did not appear. CAFH did appear, and its general manager, John Oldner, testified to events leading up to the case and the amount of damages claimed. According to Oldner, the interest on the construction loan had accrued to the point that CAFH now sought $104,965.88 from Choate. The court found in favor of CAFH and entered judgment for that amount, plus attorney fees, on July 18, 2007. The court ruled that CAFH could sell the house and either remit any excess to Choate or look to Choate for the deficiency if the sales price did not cover the judgment.”

    However, Choate successfully argued that she did not receive notice of the trial. A new trial was ordered, and the outcome was quite different. “On June 6, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment for Choate, ruling that the house was not in substantial compliance with the parties’ contract and that the contract should be rescinded. The court found that the house suffered from numerous construction defects, that the contract contemplated a slab rather than a concrete-pier foundation, and that CAFH ignored Choate’s complaints that the house was facing the wrong way. The judgment directed CAFH to hold Choate harmless on the construction loan, to deed Choate’s two acres back to her, and to remove the house from Choate’s property.”

    The Court of Appeals “found that Choate would be unjustly enriched by retaining the benefit of the septic systems and utility lines that CAFH installed on her land. The court therefore awarded $5340 to CAFH as a quantum-meruit recovery for the value of that work. CAFH contends that the award is not sufficient, but we see no clear error.” In the end, the Court of Appeals provided this reason for declining to reverse the trial court’s decision: “The court in this case apparently concluded that the house constructed by CAFH was so fundamentally at odds with Choate’s contractual expectations that she was not unjustly enriched and should simply be, as nearly as possible, returned to the status quo ante. Accordingly, the court ordered the house removed from her property and permitted CAFH to either relocate the house or salvage the house’s materials and unused appliances. We decline to reverse the court’s weighing of the equities in this manner.”

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    June 29, 2017 —
    The court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's counterclaim arising out of construction defects. Centrex Homes v. Zurich Specialties London Limited, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77212 (D. Nev. May 19, 2017). Centrex, the general contractor, was sued by homeowners in a residential development known as Liberty Hill Estates. The suit alleged that defective work had been performed by Centrex's subcontractors, one of which was Valley Concrete Company, Inc. The insurer had issued a policy to Valley and Centrex was an additional insured. The insurer agreed to defend, but only paid a portion of the defense fees and costs because the policy only covered Centrex as to liability arising from Valley's work. The insurer refused to pay defense costs incurred prior to March 28, 2012 the date of notice of claims arising from Valley's work. Centrex then filed suit against the insurer alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The insurer claimed that Centrex failed to cooperate by unilaterally switching counsel without prior notification to the insurer. This deprived the insurer of the right to control the defense and discharged the insurer's obligations under the policy. Centrex moved to dismiss the counterclaim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at