BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia parking structure Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia office building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia multi family housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia industrial building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia low-income housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia hospital construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominium Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia production housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom homes Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia institutional building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia reconstruction expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witnesses fenestrationAshburn Virginia consulting general contractorAshburn Virginia multi family design expert witnessAshburn Virginia architectural expert witnessAshburn Virginia soil failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia structural engineering expert witnesses
    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


    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    California Senator Proposes Bill to Require Contractors to Report Construction Defect Cases

    WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.

    North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

    Nevada Governor Signs Construction Defect Reform Bill

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    "My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

    Excess-Escape Other Insurance Provision Unenforceable to Avoid Defense Cost Contribution Despite Placement in Policy’s Coverage Grant

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    Builders Beware: Smart Homes Under Attack by “Hide ‘N Seek” Botnet

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

    Leaky Wells Spur Call for Stricter Rules on Gas Drilling

    Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

    Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Coverage Doomed for Failing Obtain Insurer's Consent for Settlement

    Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

    Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably

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

    Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

    Jury Convicts Ciminelli, State Official in Bid-Rig Case

    Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

    Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

    Denver’s Mayor Addresses Housing and Modifying Construction Defect Law

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

    Just a House That Uses 90 Percent Less Energy Than Yours, That's All

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    The Little Ice Age and Delay Claims

    Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    Nobody Knows What Lies Beneath New York City

    Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    Insurance and Your Roof

    How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

    What Buyers Want in a Green Home—and What They Don’t

    Construction Jobs Expected to Rise in Post-Hurricane Rebuilding
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING CONSULTANT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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

    The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

    February 27, 2019 —
    A Resolution has been proposed to the House for consideration that would recognize the Federal Government’s duty “to create a Green New Deal.” It sets forth a very ambitious 10-year program to mobilize and transform every aspect of American life to combat the threats of climate change by transitioning to an economy based upon 100% clean and renewable energy. In doing so, millions of new jobs would be created, and everyone who wants a job would be guaranteed a job. The sponsors’ talking points declare that there is no time to lose, that Americans love a challenge, and “this is our moonshot.” The obvious goal is to eliminate the generation and use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy—they are simply not part of the solution. 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

    Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits

    January 28, 2019 —
    A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits. One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    November 21, 2018 —
    In its recent decision in Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider Pennsylvania’s doctrine of reasonable expectations in the context of a faulty workmanship claim. Hallstone procured a general liability policy from Frederick Mutual to insure its masonry operations. Notably, when purchasing the policy through an insurance broker, Hallstone’s principal stated that he wanted the “maximum” “soup to nuts” coverage for his company. Hallstone was later sued by a customer for alleged defects in its masonry work. While Frederick agreed to provide a defense, it also commenced a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that its policy excluded coverage for faulty workmanship. The district court agreed that the business risk exclusions applied, but nevertheless found in favor of Hallstone based on the argument that Hallstone had a reasonable expectation that when applying for an insurance policy affording “soup to nuts” coverage, it this would include coverage for faulty workmanship claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

    What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

    December 19, 2018 —
    Every year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspects workplaces around the country for safety and occupational hazards. In 2017 alone, OSHA conducted 32,408 inspections – more than half of which were unprogrammed inspections. There are six reasons OSHA might come knocking on the door. They are (in order of priority):
    1. imminent danger situations;
    2. severe injuries and illnesses;
    3. worker complaints;
    4. referrals;
    5. targeted inspections; and
    6. follow-up inspections.
    Reprinted courtesy of Parker Rains, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Rains may be contacted at prains@fbbins.com

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    November 14, 2018 —
    Finding various exclusions inapplicable, the Federal District Court ruled that the insurer owed a defense to the general contractor based upon Texas law. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Slay Engineering, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139363 (W.D. Texas Aug. 15, 2018). Huser Construction had a CGL policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. Huser contracted to design and construct a municipal sports complex with the City of Jourdanton. The project consisted of four baseball fields, a softball field, parking lots and swimming pool. Huser subcontracted with Cody Pools, Inc. to design and build the swimming pool. Huser also subcontracted with Q-Haul, Inc. to perform earth work, grading and storm drainage work at the site. 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

    WSHB Expands into the Southeast

    March 18, 2019 —
    National law firm Wood, Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced the opening of its North Carolina office, bringing the total number of offices nationwide to 24. Leading this office is prominent trial attorney William Silverman. Mr. Silverman enjoys a well deserved reputation for consistent results throughout the Carolinas in complex commercial litigation. His practice areas include construction and corporate disputes, insurance coverage, first and third party insurance bad faith litigation, environmental, and catastrophic injury matters. He is an “AV Preeminent” rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell, and has been listed in Business North Carolina’s Legal Elite in the Young Guns and Construction categories. Mr. Silverman comes to the Firm from a seven year tenure at Wall Templeton, where he served as a Shareholder. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William Silverman, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
    Mr. Silverman may be contacted at wsilverman@wshblaw.com

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds Economic Loss Doctrine Applies to Damage to Other Property If It Was a Foreseeable Result of Disappointed Contractual Expectations

    January 15, 2019 —
    In Kmart Corp. v. Herzog Roofing, Inc., 2018 Wisc. App. Lexis 842, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s negligence claims against the defendant roofer for damages resulting from the collapse of a roof. The Court of Appeals held that, while some of the plaintiff’s property damages were unrelated to the scope of the contract, the economic loss doctrine still applied to those damages because they were a foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach of the contract. This case establishes that in Wisconsin, the economic loss doctrine bars tort claims for damage to property unrelated to the contract if those damages were a reasonably foreseeable risk of disappointed expectations of the contract. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.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