• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing Building Consultant Alberta Virginia housing Building Consultant Alberta Virginia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Alberta Virginia retail construction Building Consultant Alberta Virginia condominium Building Consultant Alberta Virginia production housing Building Consultant Alberta Virginia high-rise construction Building Consultant Alberta Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Alberta Virginia structural steel construction Building Consultant Alberta Virginia custom home Building Consultant Alberta Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Alberta Virginia custom homes Building Consultant Alberta Virginia tract home Building Consultant Alberta Virginia industrial building Building Consultant Alberta Virginia parking structure Building Consultant Alberta Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Alberta Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Alberta Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Alberta Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Alberta Virginia landscaping construction Building Consultant Alberta Virginia hospital construction Building Consultant Alberta Virginia office building Building Consultant Alberta Virginia
    Alberta Virginia structural engineering expert witnessesAlberta Virginia architectural expert witnessAlberta Virginia construction expert witnessesAlberta Virginia construction expert witnessAlberta Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAlberta Virginia expert witness commercial buildingsAlberta Virginia construction forensic expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Consultant Builders Information
    Alberta, 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 Alberta 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
    Tidewater Builders Association
    Local # 4854
    2117 Smith Ave
    Chesapeake, VA 23320

    Alberta Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Peninsula Housing & Builders Association
    Local # 4844
    760 McGuire Pl
    Newport News, VA 23601

    Alberta Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Southside VA
    Local # 4863
    10300 Corporate Road
    Petersburg, VA 23805

    Alberta Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    New River Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 4837
    PO Box 2010
    Christiansburg, VA 24068

    Alberta Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Builders & Associates of Southern VA
    Local # 4829
    PO Box 10178 Ste 28
    Danville, VA 24543
    Alberta Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association
    Local # 4881
    1626 Apperson Dr
    Salem, VA 24153

    Alberta Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Central VA
    Local # 4827
    20334 Timberlake Rd Ste 3
    Lynchburg, VA 24502

    Alberta Virginia Building Consultant 10/ 10

    Building Consultant News and Information
    For Alberta Virginia

    Construction Client Advisory: The Power of the Bonded Stop Notice Extends to Expended Construction Funds

    Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

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

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Just Because You Label It A “Trade Secret” Does Not Make It A “Trade Secret”

    Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

    Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    Stop by BHA’s Booth at WCC and Support the Susan G. Komen Foundation

    SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant

    Wharf Holdings to Sell Entire Sino-Ocean Stake for $284 Million

    Colorado HB 13-1090: Concerning Payment of Amounts Due Under a Construction Agreement

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

    Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

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

    Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

    Doing Construction Lead Programs the Right Way

    San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

    Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster

    Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit

    Construction Defects #10 On DBJ’s Top News Stories of 2015

    Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue

    Bid Protests: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Redeux)

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

    Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

    Constructive Changes – A Primer

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Balcony Collapses Killing Six People

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

    Wheaton to Require Sprinklers in New Homes

    Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

    Thanks for the Super Lawyers Nod for 2019!

    Beware of Statutory Limits on Change Orders

    Mendocino Hospital Nearing Completion

    Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    The Greenest U.S. Cities & States

    Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

    The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use

    A License to Sue: Appellate Court Upholds Condition of Statute that a Contracting Party Must Hold a Valid Contractor’s License to Pursue Action for Recovery of Payment for Contracting Services
    Corporate Profile


    The Alberta, 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
    Alberta, Virginia

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    June 18, 2019 —
    In an earlier posting I discussed the difference between first-party spoliation of evidence and third-party spoliation of evidence. There is NO independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence because that can be dealt with directly in the underlying lawsuit. This deals with the assertion that an actual party to a lawsuit spoiled evidence. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

    April 10, 2019 —
    California landlords must follow very specific steps before disposing of property that is clearly abandoned, left on real estate which has been the subject of court proceedings such as eviction or foreclosure, or otherwise left behind. Following the statutory procedures relating to abandoned property protects landlords from potential liability for an improper “conversion.” Former tenants/owners and others “reasonably believed” to be owners of the apparently abandoned personal property must be given proper written notice of the right to reclaim the abandoned property. The tenant is presumed to be the owner of any “records” remaining on the property. The California Code of Civil Procedure provides a template for such notice. The notice to be provided to former tenants/owners must be in “substantially” the same form provided in the California Code of Civil Procedure and must contain the following information:
    1. A description of the abandoned property in a manner reasonably adequate to permit the owner of the property to identify it;
    2. The location where the tenant can claim the property;
    3. The time frame that the tenant has to claim the property. The date specified in the notice shall be a date not less than fifteen (15) days after the notice is personally delivered or, if mailed, not less than eighteen (18) days after the notice is deposited in the mail;
    4. A statement that reasonable storage costs will be charged to the tenant/owner and the tenant/owner must pay those costs before claiming the property; and
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Am I Still Covered Under the Title Insurance Policy?

    May 01, 2019 —
    When transferring property for corporate restructuring or estate planning purposes, an important issue to consider is whether the successor owner will be covered by the grantee’s title insurance policy. Because title insurance policies insure only the title of the “Insured” identified in the policy, the successor in interest of the named insured may not be covered following the transfer. In older ALTA title insurance policies, the definition of “Insured” included the person or entity specifically identified in the policy as the insured, as well as any subsequent owners who took title to the subject property by operation of law. Because those policies did not clarify what the term “by operation of law” meant, it was unclear whether certain subsequent owners, such as a parent or subsidiary of the original insured, fell within the definition of “Insured”. In order to avoid any risk that a subsequent owner following a transfer between related parties was not covered by the grantor’s title policy, parties often obtained an “additional insured” endorsement which provided the subsequent owner coverage under the original policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ian Douglas, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Douglas may be contacted at

    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 Ms. Rossi may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language

    April 02, 2019 —
    Most companies have been involved in a situation where they want to end their relationship with another company, or with an employee, and to permanently terminate their mutual obligations (e.g., a settlement agreement resolving end-of-project litigation). In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. Price, confirmed that upholding general releases is “in harmony… with a beneficial principle of contract law: that general releases can be so constructed as to be completely enforceable.” In California, agreements with a release of claims (or s general release) include what is often referred to as a California Civil Code § 1542 waiver for the purpose of ensuring that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered. Such a waiver provision generally confirms that the Releasing Party acknowledges that it understands and waives the provisions of Section 1542, followed by the quoted text of Section 1542 (typically in all capital letters). Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and William S. Hale, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Mr. Hale may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

    February 27, 2019 —
    On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Trial Court's Award of Contractual Fees to Public Adjuster Overturned

    June 03, 2019 —
    A judgment awarding the public adjuster his compensation for work performed under contract was remanded for further proceedings by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Joslin v Ota Camp-Makibaka Ass'n, 2019 Haw. App. LEXIS 155 (Haw. Ct. App. April 5, 2019). A fire destroyed the homeowners' residence on September 19, 2013. The property was subject to the bylaws of the Association of Apartment Owners of Ota Camp. The Association had a policy with Alterra Excess & Surplus Insurance Company and submitted a claim for all units damaged in the fire. The Association's adjuster came the following day to inspect the site. Separately, Robert Joslin, public adjuster, entered a contract with the homeowners to adjust their claim in exchange for twelve-percent of any insurance proceeds obtained. Over the next several months Joslin pursued insurance proceeds from Alterra on behalf of the homeowners. On December 18, 2013, Joslin filed a complaint with the Insurance Division arguing that Alterra had failed to timely make payments on the claim. On February 10, 2014, Alterra's third party administrator, Engle Martin & Associates, sent a check to Joslin for $231,940 made out to the Association, the homeowners and Joslin. 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

    Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

    April 03, 2019 —
    Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at