BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia stucco expert witnessAshburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness structural engineerAshburn Virginia structural engineering expert witnessesAshburn Virginia construction expert testimonyAshburn Virginia construction cost estimating 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


    Soldiers Turn Brickies as U.K. Homebuilders Seek Workers

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered

    Hawaii Supreme Court Construes Designated Premises Endorsement In Insured's Favor

    Newmeyer & Dillion Gets Top-Tier Practice Area Rankings on U.S. News – Best Lawyers List

    Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

    Spearin Doctrine as an Affirmative Defense

    Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

    New Jersey Rules that Forensic Lab Analysts Can’t be Forced to Testify

    Do Hurricane-Prone Coastal States Need to Update their Building Codes?

    Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    Investigation of Orange County Landslide

    No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law

    Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    Florida Duty to Defend a Chapter 558 Right to Repair Notice

    Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

    Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

    Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    Putting for a Cure: Don’t Forget to Visit BHA’s Booth at WCC to Support Charity

    Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable

    Dallas Home Being Built of Shipping Containers

    Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

    No Coverage Where Cracks in Basement Walls Do Not Amount to Sudden Collapse

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    Manhattan Bargain: Condos for Less Than $3 Million

    An Era of Legends

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding

    Failing to Pay Prevailing Wages May Have Just Cost You More Than You Thought

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers

    No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

    U.S. Homeowners Are Lingering Longer, and the Wait Is Paying Off
    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

    Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

    February 15, 2018 —
    The Chicago Plan Commission on Jan. 18 approved a $700-million development that, as presented, would include the city’s sixth-tallest building. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

    Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term

    July 28, 2018 —
    Unlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.
    • On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule. The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

    July 21, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. GHD Inc.,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111827 (E.D. Wisc. July 5, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin had occasion to consider the application of a breach of contract exclusion in a professional liability policy. Crum’s insured, DVO, was sued in connection with its contract to construct a biogas converter mechanism. The underlying suit alleged a sole cause of action; namely, breach of contract based on DVO’s failure to have fulfilled its obligations to design the mechanism to specification. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

    Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

    June 13, 2018 —
    When two competing experts disagreed on the cause of the loss, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurer. Garcia v. Firs Community Ins. Co., Fla. App. LEXIS 4237 (Fla. Ct. App. March 28, 2018). Garcia, the homeowner, discovered water damage in his home, allegedly due to a roof leak. Garcia notified his insurer, First Community Insurance Company. A forensic engineer, Ivette Acosta, was retained by First Community to inspect the property. After the inspection, coverage was denied. The homeowner's policy covered direct loss to property only if the loss was a physical loss. Loss caused by ""rain snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building was excluded unless a covered peril first damaged the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." Loss caused by wear and tear, marring, or deterioration was also excluded. 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

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    May 30, 2018 —
    On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause

    July 11, 2018 —
    In recent months, the Northern District of Mississippi has grappled with how to interpret waivers of subrogation in American Institute of Architects (AIA) construction industry contracts and, specifically, how they apply to work versus non-work property. The distinction between work and non-work property has been commonly litigated and remains a hotly debated topic when handling subrogation claims involving construction defects. In Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fowlkes Plumbing, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23515 (February 12, 2018), a fire consumed the entire insured risk when one of the defendants was performing window restoration services. Subsequently, the insured’s subrogated insurer filed suit against several defendants involved in the construction project at issue. In response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered whether the waiver of subrogation clause in AIA contract form A201-2007 precluded the subrogated insurer from recovering damages from the defendants. The court held that the waiver of subrogation provision contained in AIA document A201-2007 barred the insurer from recovering for damages to the work itself, but did not apply to non-work property. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

    Texas Construction Firm Officials Sentenced in Contract-Fraud Case

    August 07, 2018 —
    Two top officials of a Texas construction company—Honest, Experienced, Reliable Contracting Solutions LLC—have been sentenced to federal prison terms for defrauding the State Dept. through a plan to steer more than $1 million in contracts to the company, the Dept. of Justice says. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

    July 21, 2018 —
    Not to cast shade on your fun in the sun, but here’s an unusual, albeit sad and creepy, one for you. I’m bummed even writing about this one. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc., Case No. S236765 (June 4, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a general contractor’s commercial general liability carrier was obligated to defend and whether the carrier was liable for damages sustained by a young girl who was molested by an employee of the general contractor during construction at a school. At issue was whether the policy’s definition of an “occurrence,” which was defined, like most policies, as “an accident,” was triggered by the “intentional” and clearly not accidental act of the general contractor’s employee. 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