BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominium Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia low-income housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia production housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom homes Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia hospital construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia office building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia institutional building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia tract home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia industrial building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia multi family housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia construction expert witness public projectsAshburn Virginia engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness commercial buildingsAshburn Virginia civil engineering expert witnessAshburn Virginia multi family design expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness roofingAshburn Virginia structural concrete expert
    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


    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

    One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

    Construction Halted in Wisconsin Due to Alleged Bid Issues

    Trump Administration Issues Proposed 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule

    Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

    Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

    Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

    Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

    More Charges Anticipated in Las Vegas HOA Scam

    Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part

    Intentional Mining Neighbor's Property is Not an Occurrence

    Case Remanded for Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

    Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

    He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It

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

    California Supreme Court Confirms the Right to Repair Act as the Exclusive Remedy for Seeking Relief for Defects in New Residential Construction

    10 Safety Tips for General Contractors

    Harmon Towers Demolition Still Uncertain

    California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

    Chinese Millionaire Roils Brokers Over Shrinking Mansion

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

    Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

    Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

    Crime Lab Beset by Ventilation Issues

    No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

    #10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

    Hanover, Germany Apple Store Delayed by Construction Defects

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

    Being deposed—not just for dictators! Depositions in the construction lawsuit (Law & Order: Hard Hat files Part 5)

    $5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

    No Coverage for Tenant's Breach of Contract Claims

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision

    Contractors: Consult Your Insurance Broker Regarding Your CGL Policy

    10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

    Florida Court of Appeals Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Intervene in Underlying Lawsuit to Submit Special Interrogatories
    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

    Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects

    December 04, 2018 —
    On October 29, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final rule in the Federal Register which amends and revises the environmental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures rules employed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). There is a renewed interest in transportation infrastructure projects, and recent legislation is intended to accelerate required environmental reviews. 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

    Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin

    February 11, 2019 —
    Most contractors are diligent about making sure that they pay their licensing fees, renew worker’s compensation insurance, and maintain the required bonds. What may be less obvious is how critically important it is to have current company personnel listed on the company’s licensing records with the Contractor’s State Licensing Board. Only personnel listed on the CSLB’s records are authorized to act on behalf of the licensee with respect to CSLB-related matters. Although this may sound simple enough, all such personnel will be required to comply with fingerprinting (and background check) requirements before their applications to be added to the company’s licensing records can be approved. No new personnel will be associated with the licensee until their application is determined to be acceptable and all other requirements are met. Unforeseeable processing delays could result in this new personnel being unable to timely act on behalf of the licensee. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and Robert A. James, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

    April 10, 2019 —
    A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

    Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

    March 04, 2019 —
    The policy's one year suit limitation provision was upheld, depriving insureds of benefits under the policy. Oswald v. South Central Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1077 (Dec. 24, 2018). The Oswalds' hog barn burned down on June 21, 2016. Arson was a possible cause. The Oswalds were insured under a combination policy issued by North Star Mutual Insurance Company and South Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central provided coverage for basic perils, broad perils, and limited perils, which included fire losses. The Central policy required property claims to be brought within one year after the loss. By endorsement, the North Star policy required suits be brought within two years after the loss. Presumably, the claims was denied, although the decision does not state this. 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

    Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

    January 09, 2019 —
    Puerto Rico’s dire insurance situation more than a year after Hurricane Maria remains a constant reminder of why policyholders must diligently pursue their property and business interruption claims in the immediate aftermath of a storm. The numbers are staggering. On an island the approximate size of Connecticut, Hurricane Maria caused an estimated $100 billion in damage. According to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the hurricane resulted in more than 287,000 insurance claims. Roughly 11,000 of those claims, representing an estimated $2 billion in losses, remain unresolved. Reprinted courtesy of Walter J. Andrews , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Cary D. Steklof , Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents

    April 03, 2019 —
    In September 2018, in Baumgartner v. Timmins, 245 Ariz. 334, 429 P.3d 567, the Arizona Court of Appeals provided further clarification on what constitutes an “encumbrance” on a property for purposes of Arizona’s statutory scheme prohibiting the recording of “false documents.” The statute, A.R.S. § 33-420, prohibits the recording of documents that a person knows to be forged, are groundless, or that contain material misstatements (or false claims). A person who claims an “interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against” real property who records such documents can be held liable for $5,000 or treble the actual damages caused by the recording (whichever is greater), A.R.S. § 33-420(A), and perhaps even be found guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, A.R.S. § 33-420(E). At issue in Baumgartner were neighbors fighting about CC&Rs—a typical neighborhood fight. In 2015, some of the neighbors filed suit against the Timminses for violating the CC&Rs. The Timminses did not contest the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In what the Court of Appeals characterized as a lawsuit filed by the Timminses “in apparent response to the [first] lawsuit and resulting default judgment,” the Timminses created, signed, and recorded affidavits contending that the Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were themselves “in violation of several provisions of the CC&Rs.” The Plaintiffs then filed suit again against the Timminses, this time contending that the Timminses had violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording the affidavits because the affidavits, the Plaintiffs contended, created encumbrances on their properties. The Apache County Superior Court agreed, and issued a final judgment nullifying the recorded documents and awarding the Timminses damages, along with their attorneys’ fees and costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bob Henry, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com

    New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client

    January 02, 2019 —
    Senate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES. California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern. SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code. This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation. California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation. The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    December 04, 2018 —
    AI continues to be a hot topic across industries. The PropTech startup SkenarioLabs has a data analytics solution that utilizes AI. The results have been successful from the perspective of property owners: reliable technical surveys that contribute to making smart investment decisions. Topi TiihonenWhile automatic valuation is not a recent invention for property owners and investors, there has not previously been an available service that combines it with technical surveying. SkenarioLabs has been building a system that digitizes technical surveys in order to help property owners manage their properties. The algorithm extracts a property’s technical risk from the market value. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi