• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia condominiums building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia window expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness structural engineerAshburn Virginia construction claims expert witnessAshburn Virginia soil failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia delay claim 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

    7 Sustainability Ideas for Modular Classrooms in the Education Industry (guest post)

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    Fannie-Freddie Elimination Model in Apartments: Mortgages

    New ANSI Requirements for Fireplace Screens

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    Echoes of Shutdown in Delay of Key Building Metric

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    Ninth Circuit Construes Known Loss Provision

    Colorado Passes Compromise Bill on Construction Defects

    Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier

    Determining Duty to Defend in Wisconsin Does Not Include Extrinsic Evidence

    Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

    Federal Judge Rips Shady Procurement Practices at DRPA

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

    Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton

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

    Finding Highway Compromise ‘Tough,’ DOT Secretary Says

    Preventing Acts of God: Construction Accidents Caused by Outside Factors

    2018 Super Bowl US. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis

    Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

    Staten Island Villa Was Home to Nabisco 'Nilla' Wafer Inventor

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    No Coverage for Additional Insured

    Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

    Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

    The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

    Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits

    When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    Another Smart Home Innovation: Remote HVAC Diagnostics

    Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

    Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

    Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

    President Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline Bill

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

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

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

    Updated: Happenings in and around the West Coast Casualty Seminar

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Ashburn, Virginia Building Expert Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Ashburn's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    October 23, 2018 —
    The appellate court reversed the jury verdict in favor of the homeowners based upon improper instructions purporting to impose a duty to adjust the claim and how to construe a contract. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v Mendoza, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 9497 (Fla. Ct. App. July 5, 2018). The insureds incurred water damage to their home caused by a water heater leak. After a claim was filed, the insurer sent an adjuster to investigate the claim. The insurer denied the claim due to an exclusion for constant or repeated seepage or leakage. At trial, the insurer offered testimony that the leak was a continued and repeated seepage of water over a long period of time, which was excluded under the policy, and not a sudden and accidental discharge of water, which would have been covered. 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

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    January 21, 2015 —
    What do New York’s most famous hotel, the Lloyd’s of London building and the headquarters of the U.K.’s top law firm have in common? They’re all owned by Chinese insurers. This new breed of buyers, who weren’t allowed to invest overseas before 2012, are flooding into the global market for prime commercial real estate after being given more freedom to deploy their $1.6 trillion of assets. That has meant good times for sellers of trophy real estate in major cities. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Vinicy Chan, Bloomberg
    Ms. Chan may be contacted at

    No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing

    June 26, 2014 —
    The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's holding that the insurer had no duty to defend claims arising out of the insureds' installation of defective steel framing in an apartment building. Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. B245961(Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2014) [decision here]. Regional Steel was a subcontractor for providing reinforced steel to the columns, walls, and floors of an apartment building under construction. Regional used 90 degree and 135 degree seismic hooks as approved by the general contractor, JSM Construction, Inc. The City building inspector issued a correction notice, however, requiring the exclusive use of the 135 degree hooks. Levels one through three had defective tie hooks and required repair. JSM refused to pay Regional's invoices and withheld $545,000. JSM had to make repairs that required opening up numerous locations in the concrete walls, welding reinforcements to the steel placed by Regional, and otherwise strengthening the inadequate installation. Regional sued JSM for the withheld payment. JSM cross-claimed, asserting breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

    January 19, 2017 —
    In Barry v. The State Bar of California (No. S214058 – 1/5/2017), the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the State Bar of California’s (“State Bar”) underlying anti-SLAPP motion (Code of Civil Procedure §425.16) on the grounds that plaintiff Patricia Barry (“Barry”), an attorney, had failed to show a probability of prevailing because, among other reasons, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Barry’s claims. The Court confirmed that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction did not prevent a trial court from basing a decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion on that ground, or to award the prevailing defendant its attorney’s fees. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at Mr. Squillario may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

    December 11, 2013 —
    In recent years, more courts have started to view construction defects as accidents, covered under insurance policies. In a post on the Parr Brown Gee & Loveless web site, Jeffrey D. Stevens writes that “the number of courts siding with insurance companies to deny contractors and subcontractors insurance coverage in construction defect lawsuits has been shrinking.” Recently, the Supreme Court of West Virginia “switched sides on this issue completely.” The Utah Supreme Court has not made a ruling on this, but the Federal District Court for the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit have looked at Utah law and concluded that “under Utah law damage caused by construction defects is not accidental.” But in another case, “the district court determined that property damage allegedly caused by defective or defectively installed windows was caused by an accident.” Mr. Stevens thinks that “it is likely” that the Utah Supreme Court “will follow the increasing number of courts that have held that damage caused by construction defects is an accident for insurance purposes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Defects Are Occurrences, Says South Carolina High Court

    December 20, 2012 —
    The South Carolina Supreme Court has left the legislature’s new, expanded definition of “occurrence” in place, declining to declare it unconstitutional. South Carolina included faulty workmanship as an occurrence in response to a Supreme Court decision, which the court later reversed. One of the parties in that earlier decision, Harleysville Insurance, challenged the new law, claiming that the legislature didn’t have the power to pass a law to overturn a court ruling. The court did not concur. However, the court did determine that the law was not retroactive and covered only claims filed after the law became effective in May 2011. The Chief Justice of South Carolina noted that “insurance coverage for construction liability lacks clarity, particularly with respect to whether construction defects constitute ‘occurrences’ under construction general insurance policies.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    BUILD Act Inching Closer To Reality

    July 08, 2011 —

    A select group of Senators have launched a marketing campaign for the BUILD Act. If this is the first you are hearing about the BUILD Act, do not fret. The Act still has a long way to go, but if successful it would bring a national infrastructure bank.

    I have been fascinated with the concept of a national infrastructure bank for quite some time. The idea has been around since the Clinton years ? and perhaps beyond. The Act’s purpose is to create a national bank (American Infrastructure Financing Authority) to provide loans and loan guarantees to encourage private investment in upgrading America’s infrastructure. For a number of years, we have seen similar legislation float around Congress. But, none of those initiatives have gained as much traction as BUILD.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at

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

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    October 11, 2017 —
    In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Walton may be contacted at