BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia office building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia retail construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia industrial building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominium Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia tract home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia institutional building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom homes Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia parking structure Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia production housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia multi family housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia soil failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia ada design expert witnessAshburn Virginia testifying construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia building expertAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessesAshburn Virginia stucco expert witnessAshburn Virginia architect expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant 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 Consultant 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 Consultant Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Northern Virginia Building Industry Association
    Local # 4840
    3901 Centerview Dr Suite E
    Chantilly, VA 20151

    Ashburn Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10


    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Ashburn Virginia


    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP

    Good and Bad News on Construction Employment

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

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Was Jury Right in Negligent Construction Case?

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Lack of Flood Insurance for New York’s Poorest Residents

    Structural Defects Lead Schools to Close off Areas

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

    Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

    California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    With VA Mechanic’s Liens Sometimes “Substantial Compliance” is Enough (but don’t count on it)

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months

    Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

    Lending Plunges to 17-Year Low as Rates Curtail Borrowing

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    To Arbitrate or Not to Arbitrate? That is the Question

    Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

    Human Eye Resolution Virtual Reality for AEC

    NYC’s First Five-Star Hotel in Decade Seen at One57 Tower

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

    Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

    Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

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

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar – Recap

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    Defining Construction Defects

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

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

    Renovation Contractors: Be Careful How You Disclose Your Projects

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

    The Top 10 Changes to the AIA A201: What You Need to Know

    Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court

    New Braves Stadium Is Three Months Ahead of Schedule, Team Says

    The Most Expensive Apartment Listings in New York That Are Not in Manhattan

    Managing Infrastructure Projects with Infrakit – Interview with Teemu Kivimäki

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

    Notes from the Nordic Smart Building Convention

    State Farm Unsuccessful In Seeking Dismissal of Qui Tam Case
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Building Consultant 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.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Construction Feb. Jobs Jump by 61,000, Jobless Rate Up from Jan.

    March 22, 2018 —
    Construction jobs soared by 61,000 in February, and the industry's unemployment rate improved year over year, but last month's rate did rise from January's level, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

    July 02, 2018 —
    California’s “anti-SLAPP” (“SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute—codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.—is the primary vehicle for defending against any action involving petitioning or free speech. The statute was designed to provide an early and fast summary judgment-like procedure to allow defendants and cross-defendants to file a motion to dismiss either an entire complaint, specific causes of action, or even just portions of a cause of action, and to require the plaintiff to respond before conducting discovery. By facilitating an early challenge to a plaintiff or cross-complainant’s claims, the anti-SLAPP statute allows the responding party to avoid the costs and delay that chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(f), an anti-SLAPP motion must be filed “within 60 days of the service of the complaint . . . .” But what if the plaintiff files an ameded complaint? In Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2018) 4 Cal.5th 637, the California Supreme Court held that the 60-day timeline runs from the date a complaint is filed with the cause(s) of action challenged in the anti-SLAPP motion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    July 28, 2018 —
    I have spoken often regarding the need for a well written construction contract that sets out the “terms of engagement” for your construction project. A written construction contract sets expectations and allows the parties to the contract to determine the “law” of their project. An unwritten “gentleman’s agreement” can lead to confusion, faulty memories, and more money paid to construction counsel than you would like as we lawyers play around in the grey areas. One other area where the written versus unwritten distinction makes a difference is in the calculation of the statute of limitations. In Virginia, a 5 year statute of limitations applies to written contracts while a 3 year statute of limitations applies to unwritten contracts. This distinction came into stark relief in the case of M&C Hauling & Constr. Inc. v. Wilbur Hale in the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court. In M&C Hauling, M&C provided hauling services to the defendant through a subcontract with Hauling Unlimited in 2014, the last of which was in July. M&C provided over 2000 hours of hauling and provided time tickets (that were passed to Mr. Hale on Hauling Unlimited letterhead and signed by Mr. Hale or his agent) and an invoice stating the price term of $75.00 per hour. No separate written contract between M&C and Hauling Unlimited or Mr. Hale existed. 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

    Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case

    July 28, 2018 —
    Bad omen. Last week, I wrote about a Appeals Court decision that affirmed a contractor’s escape from an over $600,000 withdrawal liability assessment from the Laborers Union. The next day the Third Circuit (which covers PA, NJ, and DE) handed down a decision affirming a federal court’s decision to assess withdraw liability. This one shows the dark side of not reading and understanding your CBA. The belligerents in the litigation were, Penn Jersey, a construction material supplier, and Teamsters Local 676. Their collective bargaining agreement contained a clause purportedly covering withdrawal liability. Specifically, the clause stated “should the Employer withdraw from the Agreement in the future, there will be no withdrawal liability. The CBA expired and Penn Jersey did not renew its agreement with the Teamsters. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    April 11, 2018 —
    On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided the case of Kirk v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc., et al., a personal injury action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging injury resulting from the release of thousands of gallons of trichloroethylene (TCE) at the FAG Bearings Corporation’s (FAG Bearings) facility in Joplin, MO. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judicial estoppel ruling on the successor liability issue and concluded that the jury’s verdict on compensatory damages stands but their general verdict requires a new trial on Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against FAG Bearings. 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

    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

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    March 28, 2018 —
    We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which generally holds that a higher-tiered party is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party under the peculiar risk doctrine, here, here, here and here. We’ve also talked about some of the exceptions to the Privette doctrine, including the non-delegable duty doctrine and the negligent exercise of retained control doctrine, which provide that a hirer cannot rely on the Privette doctrine if it owed a non-delegable duty to an employee of an independent contractor or if it retained control over the work of an employee of an independent contractor and negligently exercised that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to injuries to that employee. In the next case, Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. B270985 (February 2, 2018), the Court examined whether a property owner could be held liable under the non-delegable duty doctrine and negligent exercise of retained control doctrine for failing to provide structural anchor bolts on its buildings which led to the death of an employee of window washing company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rose, Black, & Dean, LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

    August 14, 2018 —
    When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com