BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia slope failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting general contractorAshburn Virginia expert witnesses fenestrationAshburn Virginia construction safety expertAshburn Virginia structural concrete expertAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer 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".


    Expert Witness Engineer 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.


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

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Ashburn Virginia


    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    My Construction Law Wish List

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

    Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

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

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

    Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Citigroup Pays Record $697 Million for Hong Kong Office Tower

    Construction Materials Company CEO Sees Upturn in Building, Leading to Jobs

    Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

    Lockton Expands Construction and Design Team

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Construction Worker Dies after Building Collapse

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

    Berkeley Researchers Look to Ancient Rome for Greener Concrete

    Umbrella Policy Must Drop Down to Assist with Defense

    Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Another Colorado Construction Defect Reform Bill Dies

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

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

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    The Louvre Abu Dhabi’s Mega-Structure Domed Roof Completed

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Contractual Indemnification Limitation on Florida Public Projects

    Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

    Alleged Defective Water Pump Leads to 900K in Damages

    Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

    KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking

    Office REITs in U.S. Plan the Most Construction in Decade

    Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

    Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Museums

    Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    June 13, 2018 —
    Under Florida’s construction-related statute of repose, Fla. Stat. § 95.11, actions based on the design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property are barred if not commenced within 10 years after the later of several possible dates, including the date of actual possession by the owner and the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Florida Legislature recently amended the statute to extend the time within which defendants subject to a suit filed close to the end of the 10-year period can file claims. Under the revised law, a defendant can file “counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party claims up to 1 year after the pleading to which such claims relate is served.” Regardless of when the cause of action at issue accrued, the law applies to actions commenced on or after July 1, 2018, except that any action that would not have been barred under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c) prior to the amendment may be commenced before July 1, 2019. The revised law provides relief to defendants because, under the prior law, they had to file claims against other potentially responsible third parties before the expiration of the statute of repose. Under the new law, defendants can bring third parties into the action after the expiration of the 10-year statute of repose period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    October 16, 2018 —
    Panama City, Fla. (AP) -- Powerful Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle with terrifying winds of 155 mph Wednesday, splintering homes and submerging neighborhoods before continuing its destructive march inland across the Southeast. It was the most powerful hurricane to hit the continental U.S. in nearly 50 years and at least one death was reported during its passage. Supercharged by abnormally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the Category 4 storm crashed ashore in the early afternoon near Mexico Beach, a tourist town about midway along the Panhandle, a 200-mile (320-kilometer) stretch of white-sand beach resorts, fishing towns and military bases. After it ravaged the Panhandle, Michael entered south Georgia as a Category 3 hurricane — the most powerful in recorded history for that part of the neighboring state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

    Strategy for Enforcement of Dispute Resolution Rights

    May 30, 2018 —
    Arbitration and litigation each offer their own benefits and drawbacks to litigants looking to resolve a construction dispute. A careful analysis of these benefits and drawbacks may be helpful in determining whether to avoid or pursue either dispute resolution process. Arbitration is oftentimes regarded as the more economically feasible dispute resolution option and is therefore attractive to many construction dispute litigants. Although arbitration may prove to be less expensive than litigation in the long run, some litigants may prefer to file a case in court because the upfront filing fees in litigation are less expensive than the filing fees of arbitration. Litigants may also prefer the decision makers of one process for dispute resolution over another. Arbitrators in a construction dispute oftentimes have a background in the construction industry, whereas a judge or jury may not. Strategy may dictate whether the preferable decision maker should have experience within the construction industry or be free of any construction industry knowledge and possible biases. The finality of decisions may also be a reason to strategically choose one dispute resolution process over another. Arbitration decisions are overturned only under very narrow and specific circumstances. The losing party in litigation however, has a right to appeal decisions to a higher court and has more options for recourse when the findings of the court are not supported by the evidence or the law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Whitney Judson, Smith Currie
    Ms. Judson may be contacted at wtjudson@smithcurrie.com

    United States Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements

    May 24, 2018 —
    On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that arbitration agreements which mandate individualized resolution of claims (as opposed to class or collective resolution) are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that such "class action waivers" violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), which generally protects employees' rights to act "in concert" with one another. The Court addressed a split created by decisions from three Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal: Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (7th Circuit), Ernst & Young v. Morris (9th Circuit) and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA (5th Circuit). All three cases involved employees who sought to bring collective or class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and their respective employers who sought to enforce pre-dispute arbitration agreements which waived such collective actions and mandated "one-on-one" arbitration of wage disputes. In support of their position, the employees argued that the class and collective action waivers were illegal because they violated the NLRA's prohibition on barring employees from engaging in "concerted activities." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jason I. Bluver and Jeffrey K. Brown Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Bluver may be contacted at jib@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at jkb@paynefears.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    July 02, 2018 —
    California law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report. The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

    October 09, 2018 —
    Design and construction changes can be a challenge for everyone involved in a construction project. Designers and contractors endeavor to deliver a project that meets the owner’s needs, budget, and aesthetic considerations. As a project comes to fruition, the project frequently changes, and the parties must address and resolve the financial considerations of those changes and implement the changes at the project level. Often times the most critical aspect of a contractor’s financial success or failure of a construction project is its ability to manage changes. Contractors are sometimes faced with changes that are beyond the reasonable expectation of the original undertaking and have significant planning, scheduling, and cost implications that may not be considered or addressed in the contract’s changes clause. Changes of this magnitude may be considered “cardinal changes” and provide the contractor with recourse beyond restrictions imposed by the contract’s changes clause. But cardinal change is a risky basis for a contractor to refuse to perform additional or changed work. Even major changes can probably be more safely handled within the terms of the contract’s changes clause. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joseph R. Young, Smith Currie
    Mr. Young may be contacted at jryoung@smithcurrie.com

    Haight Lawyers Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019

    September 04, 2018 —
    Partner Denis Moriarty and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019. Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law, and Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation. Reprinted courtesy of William G. Baumgaertner, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Denis J. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds Insurer Estopped From Denying Coverage Where Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Too Late

    August 07, 2018 —
    In an unpublished opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court, Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Badger Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 IL App (1st) 171774-U, the court held that because an insurer breached its duty to defend and failed to file a declaratory judgment action before the underlying lawsuit was resolved, it was estopped from denying coverage for the default judgment entered against its insured in the underlying lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit concerned a claim that plaintiff’s property allegedly sustained damage when the insured performed work on the plaintiff’s residence. The complaint in the underlying lawsuit did not specifically identify when the property damage occurred. However, the complaint did state that the insurer’s investigator alerted it in 2010 that the property damage was due to the insured’s faulty work during the policy period. The insurer did not defend the insured during the action and a default judgment was entered against the insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP