• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia low-income housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia multi family housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia retail construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia industrial building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia production housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominium Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia parking structure Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia institutional building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia office building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia hospital construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia construction expert witness consultantAshburn Virginia fenestration expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness roofingAshburn Virginia eifs expert witnessAshburn Virginia OSHA expert witness constructionAshburn Virginia construction expert witness public projectsAshburn Virginia construction code 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

    Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords

    Transition Study a Condo Board’s First Defense against Construction Defects

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

    Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

    Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

    Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing

    Small Airport to Grow with Tower

    Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

    Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

    Homebuilders See Record Bearish Bets on Shaky Recovery

    Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

    Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

    California Posts Nation’s Largest Gain in Construction Jobs

    Illinois Couple Files Suit Against Home Builder

    A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

    Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud

    School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty

    Strict Rules for Home Remodel Contracts in California

    BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction

    How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    2015 California Construction Law Update

    Forecast Sunny for Solar Contractors in California

    Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects

    Architect Blamed for Crumbling Public School Playground

    Construction Law Firm Opens in D.C.

    ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms


    Single-Family Home Starts Seen Catching Up to Surging U.S. Sales

    Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession

    OSHA Issues Fines for Fatal Building Collapse in Philadelphia

    California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

    Revel Closing Shows Gambling Is No Sure Thing for Renewal

    New Rule Prohibits Use of Funds For Certain DoD Construction and Infrastructure Programs and Projects

    Slump in U.S. Housing Starts Led by Multifamily: Economy

    Who Is To Blame For Defective — And Still LEED Certified — Courthouse Square?

    Contractor Removed from Site for Lack of Insurance

    "Is the Defective Work Covered by Insurance?"

    Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

    Town Sues over Defective Work on Sewer Lines
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Ashburn, Virginia Building Consultant Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Ashburn's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Building Consultant News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters

    June 06, 2018 —
    Here at Musings, I have often (some might say too often) discussed the fact that in Virginia (as well as other places), your construction contract language will be strictly enforced. I have also discussed the need for attorney fees provisions as well as other language in order to mitigate your risk as a contractor. A recent case from the City of Roanoke Circuit Court discussed both of these principals and their intersection. In LAM Enterprises, LLC v. Roofing Solutions, Inc., the Roanoke Court looked at a contract between LAM and Roofing Solutions, Inc. that contained two provisions of the construction contract between the parties. The first provision limited the liability of Roofing Solutions to the contract price. The second provision is a relatively typical “prevailing party” attorney fees provision in which the winner of any lawsuit would be entitled to collect its attorney fees. For the specific language of these provisions, I commend the opinion linked above for your reading. 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

    Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen

    February 22, 2018 —
    I met Jarmo, the Technology Manager at Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, at the leading event for housing markets in Helsinki (Asuntomarkkinat). He and his team had set up an impressive display of devices and structures in the KIRA-digi showroom. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, aec business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at

    California Supreme Court Finds Negligent Supervision Claim Alleges An Occurrence

    July 21, 2018 —
    Answering a question posed by the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court found that a suit against a employer for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of a employee who intentionally injures a third party alleges an occurrence under a CGL policy. Liberty Surplus Co. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 4063 (Cal. June 4, 2018) Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company (L&M) contracted with the school district to manage a construction project at a middle school. L&M hired Darold Hecht as an assistant superintendent on the project. In 2010, Jane Doe, a 13-year-old student at the school, sued alleging that Hecht had sexually abused her. Doe’s claims included a cause of action against L&M for negligent hiring, retaining, and supervising Hecht. 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

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    May 24, 2018 —
    Twenty-five years ago. 1993. On January 23rd, Bill Clinton was sworn in as the 42nd President of the United States. The average cost of a gallon of gasoline was $1.16, a movie ticket cost $4.00, and the average cost of a new home was $113,200.00. 1993 also marked the first of what would be a quarter century of annual seminars hosted by West Coast Casualty Service, and provided to the combined professionals within the Construction Defect Community. As the seminar has grown both in attendance and prominence within this community under the watchful stewardship of David and Coral Stern, much has changed both with regard to the content of the seminar and the climate within which it was presented. A quick look at the topics addressed over the past 25 years of the Construction Defect Seminar provides one with a veritable history of construction defect litigation and insurance coverage trends across the United States and beyond. While the first seminar was hosted in 1993, my first attendance didn’t occur until 1999, and the first time I was honored to be a panelist would have to wait until 2007. In the subsequent years, I’ve had the opportunity to sit on panels an additional three times, and each one I gained rare and valuable insights into the Construction Defect Community, its willingness to challenge itself, and the amazing professionals we all have the distinct pleasure of working with every day (and whom we sometimes take too much for granted). In the mid to late 90’s, topics at the seminar included such subjects as the Montrose Chemical Corp v. Superior Court decision (Montrose) regarding a carrier’s duty to defend and the subsequent Stonewall Insurance case that examined the duty to indemnify in the context of construction defect claims. The California Calderon Act of 1997, laying out the roadmap for HOA’s filing construction defect lawsuits was also a topic of discussion and debate within the West Coast “arena.” The new millennium saw the landmark Aas v. William Lyon decision, which disallowed negligence claims for construction defects in the absence of actual resultant damage. This was followed by Presley Homes v. American States Insurance wherein the court ruled that a duty to defend applies where there is mere potential for coverage and the duty to defend applies to the entire action. Each of these bellwether decisions was addressed contemporaneously by panels at the West Coast seminar, contemporaneously bringing additional dialog to the CD community, from within the community. 2002 brought what has become the defining legislation in California regarding construction defect litigation and a builder’s right to repair. Senate Bill 800 (SB800), and its subsequent codification as Title 7, Part 2 of Division 2 of the California Civil Code, Sections 895 through 945.5 would become the defining framework for similar legislation across the United States. During the course of its drafting, movement through the legislature, and final adoption in January of 1993, many of the questions raised and debated in committees in Sacramento, had already been and were continuing to be addressed by panelists at the West Coast Seminar. How does SB800 work with Calderon? How does it affect the prior Aas decision? What now constitutes a defect, and what are timeframes established within the complex pre-litigation process? Open the pages of the 2002 – 2004 Seminar invitations and you’ll see panels comprised of the finest members of the insurance law and coverage communities addressing those very questions (and more)! As the first decade of the new century drew to a close, a brief review of the WCC invitations from that period suggests a trend towards programmatic analyses of key themes selected for the seminar. In 2008, my second opportunity as a guest speaker, topics included a review of the state of construction defect litigation in a post-SB 800 environment. Panelists offered retrospective insight into the state of right to repair statutes in multiple states, while others offered a glimpse at where the industry might be headed, as similar legislation was enacted across the country. As always, pertinent court decisions bearing on construction defect, both in California, and elsewhere were given unique perspective and additional clarity by multiple panels of gifted speakers. In 2009, claims and coverage were examined from multiple unique perspectives, including that of plaintiff, the policyholder, and the insurer. Wrap policies and the gaps in due to self-insured retention obligations were examined. As we rapidly approach the end of the second decade of the 21st Century, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar continues to lead the Construction Defect Community as the premier source for information and peer dialog on all matters relating to construction law, coverage, and emerging trends. In 2017, the Seminar tackled such broad subjects as the role of women in the construction industry, claims management, and risk management, challenges raised by wrap versus non-wrap litigation, and the emergent trend of apartment to condo conversions (and the attendant coverage challenges). On May 16th at the Disneyland Resort, in Anaheim California, America’s largest Construction Defect event kicked off its 25th Anniversary celebration. As has been every year since 1993, the Seminar provided insurance, legal, and industry professionals an exciting and informative array of salient and timely panel topics, as well as a stellar faculty of gifted panelists. This year’s West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar, like the past 25 years, was not only informative and educational, but also a promise for another 25 years of peerless service to the Construction Defect Community. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

    June 13, 2018 —
    Under Florida’s construction-related statute of repose, Fla. Stat. § 95.11, actions based on the design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property are barred if not commenced within 10 years after the later of several possible dates, including the date of actual possession by the owner and the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Florida Legislature recently amended the statute to extend the time within which defendants subject to a suit filed close to the end of the 10-year period can file claims. Under the revised law, a defendant can file “counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party claims up to 1 year after the pleading to which such claims relate is served.” Regardless of when the cause of action at issue accrued, the law applies to actions commenced on or after July 1, 2018, except that any action that would not have been barred under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c) prior to the amendment may be commenced before July 1, 2019. The revised law provides relief to defendants because, under the prior law, they had to file claims against other potentially responsible third parties before the expiration of the statute of repose. Under the new law, defendants can bring third parties into the action after the expiration of the 10-year statute of repose period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at

    Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

    April 11, 2018 —
    The Florida Court of Appeals recently held the policy's exclusion for repeated water seepage over a period of fourteen days or more does not exclude loss caused by the seepage for the first thirteen days. Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

    February 28, 2018 —
    Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at Mr. Parham may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California’s Right To Repair Act Is The Sole Remedy For Damages For Construction Defects In New Residential Construction

    March 14, 2018 —
    The California Supreme Court ruled in McMillin Albany LLC et al. v. The Superior Court of Kern County, (1/18/2018) 4 cal. 5th 241, that California’s Right to Repair Act, California Civil Code sections 895 et seq. (“Act”) is the sole remedy for construction defect claims for economic loss and property damages regarding new residential construction. The Act establishes a pre-litigation dispute resolution process that must be followed before filing a construction defect action for new residential construction purchased after January 1, 2003. The Act provides a builder with the right to attempt to repair construction defects before litigation is filed. The McMillin ruling resolved a split among two court of appeal decisions regarding the scope of the Act: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and Burch v. Superior Court [(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411. Those cases held that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for construction defect lawsuits that allege property damage arising from new residential construction. Therefore owners of new residential construction where construction defects had caused property damage were not required to proceed under the Act and instead could proceed with common law claims. McMillilin removes that option. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Mark Johnson, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Johnson may be contacted at