BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    retail construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominium Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia production housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia office building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia institutional building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom homes Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia industrial building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia tract home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia hospital construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia multi family housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia consulting general contractorAshburn Virginia window expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witness consultantAshburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAshburn Virginia architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction experts
    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


    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law

    Manhattan Condos at Half Price Reshape New York’s Harlem

    Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    South Carolina Supreme Court Asked Whether Attorney-Client Privilege Waived When Insurer Denies Bad Faith

    BHA at the 10th Annual Construction Law Institute, Orlando

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan

    Second Month of US Construction Spending Down

    General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury

    Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

    Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses

    What You Don’t Know About Construction Law Can Hurt Your Engineering Firm (Law Note)

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1

    Increase in Single-Family New Home Sales Year-Over-Year in January

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    Cable-Free Elevators Will Soar to New Heights, and Move Sideways

    Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

    Cracked Girders Trigger Scrutiny of Salesforce Transit Center's Entire Structure

    Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

    Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    Two-Part Series on Condominium Construction Defect Issues

    The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    Union Handbilling: When, Where, and Why it is Legal

    Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    Pennsylvania Homeowner Blames Cracks on Chipolte Construction

    Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    Ahlers & Cressman Presents a Brief History of Liens

    Loss Caused by Subcontractor's Faulty Work Covered in Georgia

    New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

    County Elects Not to Sue Over Construction Defect Claims

    Concurrent Causation Doctrine Applies Where Natural and Man-made Perils Combine to Create Loss

    Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Building Consultant Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Insured's Complaint for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Adequately Pleads Consequential Damages

    March 27, 2019 —
    The appellate court overturned the trial court's dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages. D.K. Prop. Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v, Pa., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 329 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 17, 2019). The insured's building began to shift and exhibit structural damage, including cracks, after construction began in an adjoining building. The insured submitted a claim under its commercial insurance policy. The insurer did not pay the claim, nor did it disclaim coverage. The insured sued, alleging breach of contract for failure to pay covered losses under the policy. The second cause of action was for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint also requested consequential damages in connection with each cause of action. The trial court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages. 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

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Reasonableness of Denial of Requests for Admission Based Upon Expert’s Opinions Depends On Factors Within Party’s Understanding

    February 27, 2019 —
    In Orange County Water District v. The Arnold Engineering Company (D070763), the Fourth Appellate District examined the criteria for evaluating the reasonableness of a parties’ denial of requests for admission (RFA’s) based upon their expert’s opinions and the proof required to recover costs for unreasonable denials. In Orange County Water District, the Orange County Water District (the District) sued several current and former owners and operators of industrial sites, including The Arnold Engineering Company (Arnold), to recover expenses associated with groundwater cleanup efforts intended to address groundwater contamination caused by volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) and other chemicals. Over six years, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including document productions, depositions, and soil sampling and monitoring. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Coyness is Nice. Just Not When Seeking a Default Judgment

    March 04, 2019 —
    As Morrissey of the Smith’s sang: Coyness is nice, but Coyness can stop you, from saying all the things in life you’d like to. It’s not uncommon in litigation to see a complaint asking for “damages according to proof.” Call it laziness. Call it hiding the ball. Call it coy, even. I call it risky. And here’s why: If a defendant doesn’t appear and you need to seek a default judgment against him, her, or it, you are barred from doing so, since you are limited to recovering the amount you sought. And last I checked, something of nothing is nothing. In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. G054522 (December 11, 2018), one plaintiff found this out the hard way, although perhaps not quite in the way they expected it. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Now Set for Trial in Bribe Case

    December 11, 2018 —
    Pierre Duhaime, the former CEO of Canadian design-build giant SNC-Lavalin—who resigned from the firm in 2012 in the wake of a contracting bribery scandal in which he was arrested for his alleged role—is now set for a February trial start in Quebec Superior Court. The case relates to payoffs on one project, a multibillion-dollar Montreal hospital on which the firm led the public-private construction consortium. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, ENR
    Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

    KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

    December 04, 2018 —
    In Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC,1 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a mining error was not a covered accident under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The central issue was whether an insured mining company’s unauthorized removal of minerals from a neighboring property was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by the mining company’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL Policy”). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Phillip A. Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Perez may be contacted at pap@sdvlaw.com

    Making the World’s Longest Undersea Railway Tunnel Possible with BIM

    December 11, 2018 —
    Finland and Estonia are Baltic sea neighbors separated by the Gulf of Finland. Over eight million travelers and 1.2 million cars travel between Helsinki and Tallinn every year by boat. However, a consortium of companies is now planning to build the Finest railway tunnel between the two countries. The vision of such a tunnel has been around since the 1990s. In June 2016, Peter Vesterbacka, previously known as the marketer behind Rovio’s Angry Birds, made the latest endeavor public in his AEC Hackathon presentation. 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

    Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues

    March 04, 2019 —
    In a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach. Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018) Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record. Reprinted courtesy of Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of