BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia defective construction expertAshburn Virginia expert witness windowsAshburn Virginia delay claim expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAshburn Virginia forensic architectAshburn Virginia construction claims expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness roofing
    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


    The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

    “Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme

    Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

    Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

    Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

    Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading

    Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation

    Insurer Able to Refuse Coverage for Failed Retaining Wall

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

    Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

    Luxury Homes Push City’s Building Permits Past $7.5 Million

    Renters Trading Size for Frills Fuel U.S. Apartment Boom

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    Construction Slow to Begin in Superstorm Sandy Cases

    No Choice between Homeowner Protection and Bankrupt Developers?

    #5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    ZLien Startup has Discovered a Billion in Payments for Clients

    Home-Sales Fall in 2014 Has U.S. Waiting for 2015: Economy

    The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

    Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

    Bidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is Set

    #6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers

    Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored

    Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

    Wisconsin “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”

    Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    October 28, 2011 —

    An upstate New York man who was injured when an unsecured truss fell off the railings of a scissor lift has settled for $500,000. As the accident happened at the building site for a casino for the Seneca Nation, attorneys for the construction firm had argued that New York labor laws were inapplicable as the injury happened on Seneca Nation land. The state appeals court ruled that as none of the parties involved were Native Americans, it was not internal to the affairs of the Seneca Nation.

    Read the full story...

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

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

    October 22, 2014 —
    According to the New Jersey Law Journal, in a recent ruling, a federal judge in Newark “ruled that an arbitration award should not be vacated based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his professional contacts with defense counsel during his prior career as a federal judge.” The plaintiff had sought to vacate an award “because he failed to disclose interactions he had with Dennis Drasco, the lawyer for the defendant, while serving on the bench. But Brown was not required to disclose his contacts with Drasco because they would not cause a reasonable person to question Brown’s impartiality, U.S. District Judge William Walls ruled Oct. 21,” reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The plaintiff’s assertions “suggest nothing more than that Judge Brown and Mr. Drasco were familiar with one another in their professional capacities,” Walls stated, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

    January 05, 2017 —
    The defense of set-off is an important defense in construction disputes, particularly multiparty disputes. For more information on this defense, please check out this article as it explains the application of set-off in civil disputes in detail. The issue of set-off will come up in a multiparty dispute when a plaintiff settles with one or more of the defendants. The remaining defendant(s) wants the benefit of that settlement to set-off and reduce any judgment against it. An example of this scenario can be found in Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D23a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In this case, an owner of a condominium unit sued the condominium association, the developer, and the general contractor for water intrusion and mold infestation. The claim against the condominium association was the only claim that entitled the owner to attorney’s fees pursuant to its lawsuit (thus, attorney’s fees were isolated to only that claim against the association). During trial, the owner settled with the association. In entering a settlement, the owner smartly allocated the settlement amount such that $500 was allocated to its principal damages and $374,500 was allocated to its attorney’s fees. The owner then obtained a jury verdict against the contractor and developer for approximately $2M, jointly and severally, and the contractor and developer wanted the entire $375,000 settlement amount with the association to be set-off from the $2M verdict. The trial court set-off the entire $375,000 from the jury verdict when entering judgment. The appellate court reversed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

    The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law

    July 19, 2017 —
      The California Contractors State License Board issues licenses in three general classifications:
    1. Class A – General Engineering Contractors;
    2. Class B – General Building Contractors; and
    3. Class C – Specialty Contractors of which there are currently 42 different Class C specialty contractors license types.
    Each of these license classifications has separate contracting rules, and rules regarding when work can be self-performed, which for many can be confusing. Minor Work Exception One important (albeit “minor”) exception is that no contractor’s license is required no matter what type of work is being performed if the project has a value of less than $500. Known as the “minor work exception,” the exception is a project-based, not work-based, exception. Thus, for example, if a project owner is remodeling their kitchen at a cost of $6,000 and the cost of doing the flooring is only $300, the person doing the flooring would need to have a contractor’s license in the appropriate classification since the aggregate cost of the work is $500 or more. 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

    Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

    February 21, 2013 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal is supporting efforts to reform the state’s construction defect laws. Although the intention was to “protect homeowners from the costs of shoddy workmanship,” they state the laws have instead “enriched lawyers and made housing more expensive.” The take the Las Vegas homeowner association scandal as a sign that reform is needed. A further sign of needed reform is that during a time when new home sales decreased, construction defect claims more than tripled. The editorial notes that “current law allows lawsuits to be brought for cosmetic imperfections that pose no risks.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    March 01, 2012 —

    The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.

    Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.

    The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”

    Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”

    The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”

    Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”

    The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.

    Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.

    Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”

    The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    Remembering Joseph H. Foster

    April 20, 2016 —
    We are saddened to share the news of the loss of our longtime partner and good friend, Joseph H. Foster. Mr. Foster was a nationally recognized trial attorney who began his career at White and Williams LLP in 1958, becoming a partner in 1963, and continued to practice law, coming into the office every day, until he was hospitalized before his passing. A true giant in the Pennsylvania legal community, Joe exemplified the best of the legal profession and was widely admired and respected among the bar and bench for his lasting and impactful contributions. Mr. Foster served as the Chair of the Litigation Department and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee. During his tenure at White and Williams, he grew to become one of the most respected trial lawyers in Pennsylvania. He promoted a culture of excellence in client services and was the proverbial lawyer’s lawyer, treating his adversaries with courtesy and respect and always looking to find justice in the matters he handled. He was active in training at the firm, mentoring generations of trial lawyers and personally moving for the admission of hundreds of new attorneys at the firm, including an annual ceremony in Federal Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of White & Williams LLP

    Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

    June 26, 2014 —
    Dorian Bishopp blames the solar panels on his roof for costing him almost 10 percent off the value of the home he sold in March. That’s because instead of owning them he leased the panels from SunPower Corp. (SPWR), requiring the new owner of the house to assume a contract with almost 19 years remaining. He had to shave the asking price for the house in Maricopa, Arizona, to draw in buyers unfamiliar with the financing arrangement. Leasing is driving a boom in solar sales because most require no money upfront for systems that cost thousands of dollars. That’s made solar affordable for more people, helping spur a 38 percent jump in U.S. residential installations in the past year. Since the business model only gained currency in the past two years, the details embedded in the fine print of the deals are only starting to emerge. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Will Wade, Bloomberg
    Mr. Wade may be contacted at wwade4@bloomberg.net