BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia construction expert witnessesAshburn Virginia soil failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction cost estimating expert witnessAshburn Virginia eifs expert witnessAshburn Virginia structural concrete expertAshburn Virginia building code compliance expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting architect 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


    Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

    Is New York Heading for a Construction Defect Boom?

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    The Indemnification Limitation in Section 725.06 does not apply to Utility Horizontal-Type Projects

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    Is it the Dawning of the Age of Strict Products Liability for Contractors in California?

    Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work

    Zell Says Homeownership Rate to Fall as Marriages Delayed

    Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?

    Not to Miss at This Year’s Archtober Festival

    Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant

    Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland

    Witt Named to 2017 Super Lawyers

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

    Protect Workers From Falls: A Leading Cause of Death

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

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

    CDJ’s #7 Topic of the Year: The Las Vegas Harmon Hotel Year-Long Demolition & Trial Begins

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

    Haight Ranked in 2018 U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" List

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

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Surged in August to Six-Year High

    The Great Fallacy: If Builders Would Just Build It Right There Would Be No Construction Defect Litigation

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Water Damage Claims

    Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

    Construction Laborers Sue Contractors Over Wage Theft

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    Construction Defects through the Years

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems

    Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Houses Can Still Make Cents: Illinois’ Implied Warranty of Habitability

    Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    The Biggest Thing Keeping Young Homebuyers out of the Market Isn't Student Debt
    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. Leveraging 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

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining

    May 03, 2018 —
    For fine dining experiences outside of the Disneyland Resort, try Summit House Restaurant or the Anaheim White House Italian Steak House . A more unusual and upscale restaurant, try The Hobbit in nearby Orange, California. They offer a seven-course, prix-fixe menu by reservation only. It’s a four-hour dining experience that begins in their Wine Cellar, then guests are taken to their tables in the dining room. Next, is an intermission where guests are encouraged to relax on the patios or visit the kitchen to chat with the chef. Guests then return to their table to finish their entrees and dessert. If you’d rather spend your time in a unique lounge or bar, try the Blind Rabbit, which calls itself Orange County’s speak easy. Located in the Anaheim Packing District, the Blind Rabbit’s tables are all reserved after 5pm, and you might want to brush up on their list of rules prior to visiting. For something casual, try Hollinghead’s Delicatessen in Orange, where you can purchase hand crafted sandwiches and beers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

    August 20, 2018 —
    Faced with a series of policies, earlier ones which did not define collapse, newer policies which did, the court determined there was a possibility of coverage under the older policies which did not define collapse. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100548 (D. Conn. June 15, 2018). Connecticut courts have faced a rash of collapse cases as a result of cement provided to build house foundations by J.J. Mottes Concrete Co. Many basement foundations built with the concrete have shown cracking and other signs of premature deterioration. 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    July 02, 2018 —
    Today at Construction Law Musings, we’re back to a discussion of mechanic’s liens. This past week, the Loudoun County Circuit Court here in Virginia had an opportunity to discuss the interaction between mechanic’s liens, contracts and the law of fixtures. In TWP Enters. v Dressel, the Court considered a provision of a contract between the TWP Enterprises, a supplier of materials to the construction project, and the builder for the defendant. The provision between the supplier and builder essentially stated that until such time as TWP’s materials were paid for in full, TWP kept title to them (check out the case link above for the full text of the provision). Needless to say, the builder did not pay and TWP filed a mechanic’s lien then sued to enforce that lien. The owners demurred to the complaint and asked the Court to dismiss the claim on several grounds, among them that the contractual provision described above precluded the enforcement of the lien because TWP retained title to the materials despite the fact that they had been incorporated into the structure of the building and were therefore part of the realty. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    October 09, 2018 —
    On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    What is the Implied Warranty of Habitability?

    October 02, 2018 —
    The implied warranty of habitability plays an important role in our understanding of the relationship between tenant and landlord; it helps to define the parameters and requirements of contracts between tenant and the owner. In doing so, the implied warranty of habitability is meant to ensure that a home or rental unit is in a livable condition. In this article, we’ll take a look at what the warranty of habitability is, how it developed, and what differentiates the warranty of habitability from the previous landlord-tenant law. Background of the Implied Warranty of Habitability When someone hears about the warranty of habitability, their first question is usually “what is the implied warranty of habitability?” This is understandable, given that the implied warranty of habitability isn’t exactly well known. Most renters have probably never heard of the implied warranty of habitability, despite the fact that it provides important safeguards for tenant’s rights. In order to gain a better understanding of what the implied warranty of habitability is, it is helpful to understand what state of affairs existed prior to the adoption of an implied warranty of habitability. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    July 10, 2018 —
    On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the District Court granting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Orchard Hill Building Company’s (Orchard) complaint that the Corps’ jurisdictional determination erroneously found that the waters at issue were “jurisdictional waters” under the Clean Water Act (CWA) subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction. Acknowledging that the Corps and EPA had promulgated a new rule re-defining “waters of the United States” in 2015—which is now being challenged in the courts—the Court of Appeals noted that this case is controlled by the pre-2015 definition of “waters of the United States.” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Corps, directing it to determine if there was a significant nexus, as required. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

    August 07, 2018 —
    On July 16, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Travelers Indemnity Company v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, No. 420, 2017 (Del. Jul. 16, 2018), that a court’s choice of law inquiry in an insurance coverage dispute should focus on the contacts most relevant to the insurance contract rather than the location of the underlying claims. In Travelers, CNH Industrial America, LLC (CNH), sought coverage for asbestos liabilities associated with J.I. Case, Inc., a subsidiary it had acquired, under policies issued to J.I. Case and its former parent company, Tenneco, Inc. The issue before the Delaware Supreme Court was whether the anti-assignment clause in three Travelers policies issued to Tenneco, Inc. precluded the assignment of the policies to CNH. The validity of the assignment turned on which state’s law governed the dispute. (Under Wisconsin law, the parties agreed that the assignment was valid, while under Texas law, the parties agreed the assignment was invalid.) Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White and Williams LLP and Zachery Roth, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    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