• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    mid-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominium Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia tract home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia hospital construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia production housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia office building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia low-income housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia retail construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia parking structure Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia institutional building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom homes Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia consulting general contractorAshburn Virginia construction project management expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witnesses fenestrationAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia building expertAshburn Virginia construction scheduling expert witnessAshburn Virginia delay claim 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

    Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

    Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

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

    Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

    The ARC and The Covenants

    Avoid Delay or Get Ready to Pay: The Risks of “Time-Is-of-The-Essence” Clauses

    Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

    New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

    Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

    U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data

    Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

    General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

    Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

    Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

    Blackstone to Buy Apartments From Greystar in $2 Billion Deal

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    Court Rejects Anti-SLAPP Motion in Construction Defect Suit

    MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

    Negligence Per Se Claim Based Upon Failure to Pay Benefits Fails

    California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

    General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

    Brazil Builder Bondholders Burned by Bribery Allegations

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

    Duty to Defend Requires Payments Under Policy's Supplemental Payments Provision

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

    Is Solar the Next Focus of Construction Defect Suits?

    US Secretary of Labor Withdraws Guidance Regarding Independent Contractors

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Civil RICO Case Against Johnny Doc Is Challenging

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    CGL Insurer’s Duty To Defend Broader Than Duty To Indemnify And Based On Allegations In Underlying Complaint

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    The Problem with One Year Warranties

    Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

    Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

    California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention
    Corporate Profile


    The Ashburn, Virginia Building Consultant Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing 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

    Dump Site Provider Has Valid Little Miller Act Claim

    October 19, 2020 —
    You may have thought that a Virginia “Little Miller Act” bond claim, like a mechanic’s lien, could only be brought by those that provide materials and labor incorporated into the construction project. If you did, you aren’t alone. In fact, Safeco Insurance Co. of America, a surety, made exactly the above argument in Yard Works LLC v. GroundDown Constructors LLC. In that case, a debris hauling company failed to pay Yard Works, the company that provided the dumping site for the debris. Yard Works sued pursuant to the Little Miller Act to get paid. In response, the surety sought to have the claim against the payment bond dismissed and argued that because Yard Works did not actually improve the property or provide improvements and that Yard Works only passively provided a dump site, Yard Works could not claim under the payment bond. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    The Show Must Go On: Navigating Arbitration in the Wake of the COVID-19 Outbreak

    July 20, 2020 —
    The recent COVID-19 outbreak has altered life for all of us, in ways both big and small. Unprecedented restrictions relating to the pandemic have forced individuals across the globe to change the ways in which they live and work. Perhaps not surprisingly, these restrictions have also changed the way we resolve disputes. Just as virtual conferencing has become the “new normal” for family gatherings and social events, it has also become the “new normal” for everything from mediation, to oral argument, to full-blown hearings. To be sure, there are a number of advantages to conducting adversarial proceedings virtually. First and foremost, it results in substantial cost savings for the parties involved. In-person proceedings typically require significant travel expenses, including airline tickets, hotel reservations, and food and beverage stipends. The use of a virtual forum essentially eliminates these expenses, cutting costs dramatically for attorneys, clients, judges, and arbitrators alike. Virtual conferencing also affords the opportunity for increased participation from party representatives living across the country, or even across the world. While demanding work schedules often make it impossible for multiple party representatives to attend a deposition, or even a hearing, in person, virtual proceedings require much less of a time commitment. Because these virtual proceedings require participants to spend less time away from other work-related obligations, party representatives are able to attend proceedings that they may otherwise have had to miss. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Justin K. Fortescue, Zachery B. Roth and Marianne Bradley Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at Mr. Roth may be contacted at Ms. Bradley may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

    July 13, 2020 —
    A North Carolina court recently ruled in favor of all sums allocation. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. AG Insurance SA/NV, No. 17 CVS 5594 (N.C. Sup. Ct.). In that case, Duke Energy is seeking coverage for “liabilities linked to coal combustion residuals (‘CCRs’), i.e., coal ash, at fifteen Duke-owned power plants in North and South Carolina.” In a recent summary judgment decision, the court resolved a dispute between Duke and TIG Insurance Company, as successor to Ranger Insurance Company, about whether all sums allocation or pro rata allocation applied. The court found that “the non-cumulation provisions make plain” that all sums allocation applied. It also noted that “a large majority of the courts in other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have recognized that non-cumulation provisions such as those here compel all sums rather than pro rata allocation.” The decisions to the contrary, according to the court, had ruled “done so on public policy grounds” and not based on “the application of the rules of contract interpretation.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at Mr. McDermott may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    I’m Sorry Ms. Jackson, I [Sovereign Immunity] am For Real

    June 08, 2020 —
    The Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion in Florida Highway Patrol v. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 (Fla. Jan 23, 2020), which answered the following certified question of great public importance: Does rule 9.130 [(A)(3)(C)(XI)] permit an appeal of a non-final order denying immunity if the record shows that the defendant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law but the trial court did not explicitly preclude it as a defense? The Court’s answer to this question was “no.” But this opinion stands for much more than just a negative answer to a certified question. Indeed, this opinion has significant implications upon procedural and substantive areas of construction law, which may affect agents of the state of Florida, including Construction Engineering and Inspection professionals and consultants (“CEI”). Procedurally, the Court recognizes that Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 insufficiently protects the public and governmental interests as “it leaves too great a risk that erroneous denials of operational sovereign immunity will go unreviewed until it is too late.” Id. at * 19. By extension of this risk, the Jackson Court announced that “courts should determine entitlement to sovereign immunity as early as the record permits.” Id. at * 18. In fact, on that basis, courts can address a motion for summary judgment asserting entitlement to sovereign immunity even if there are outstanding disputes as to, say, the existence of a duty of care. Id. at 17-18. Accordingly, and in an effort to remedy the risk of erroneous denials going unreviewed until it is too late, the Court amended Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 to expand appellate review of nonfinal orders denying sovereign immunity. Jackson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 108 at * 19; In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130, No. SC19-1734 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020). The new form of Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cements the policy mentioned above because it allows an appeal of a nonfinal order denying a motion for summary judgment due to entitlement to sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, under the old rule, the order was only appealable if the trial court order determined – as a matter of law – that a party was not entitled to sovereign immunity. As such, the new rule focuses on what was argued in the motion as opposed to what was written in the order. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Greggory Jacobs, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
    Mr. Jacobs may be contacted at

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    June 22, 2020 —
    Under Illinois law, an insurer’s duty to defend includes the right to control the defense, which allows insurers to protect their financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. However, where a conflict of interest exists, the insured, rather than the insurer, is entitled to assume control of the defense of the underlying action. If this occurs, the insurer satisfies its obligation to defend by reimbursing the insured for the cost of defense provided by independent counsel selected by the insured. What circumstances and situations arise to the level of an actual conflict of interest between the insurer and insured are often grounds for dispute. In Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 2020 IL App (1st) 182491 (Apr. 7, 2020), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed whether damages awarded by a jury in excess of the policy limits were sufficient to trigger a right to independent counsel for post-trial and appellate proceedings. According to the Illinois Appellate Court, at least under the facts of the Ryerson case, the answer is “no.” In Ryerson, Nancy Hoffman sued Ryerson for injuries sustained in a tractor-trailer accident. Ryerson tendered the suit to its primary insurer, Travelers, and its umbrella insurer, Illinois National. The policy limits were $2 million and $25 million, respectively. A jury found in favor of Hoffman for over $27.6 million in damages, and Ryerson appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at

    Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update

    June 15, 2020 —
    A California Court of Appeals opinion published earlier this month brings a change to payment bond claims brought by unpaid subcontractors and suppliers. The decision (Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America) places limitations on a payment bond surety’s ability to rely on subcontract “pay-when-paid” language, stating that a payment provision typically found in subcontracts is contrary to the “reasonable time” statutory requirement and will not be enforced. This represents a major shift in California construction payment bond claim rights. Plaintiff Crosno Construction, Inc. (“Crosno) was a subcontractor to general contractor Clark Brothers (“Clark”), who was principal on a public works payment bond issued by Travelers. The owner was a public agency district (“District.”) Crosno had completed most of its subcontract work when a dispute between District and Clark arose, causing the project to stop. Crosno then sought payment through a payment bond claim against Travelers. Travelers denied the claim, relying on the subcontract’s payment provisions and asserting the defense that it had no obligation to pay on the bond claim because the litigation between Clark and the District had not yet reached its conclusion. Subcontract. The subcontract between Clark and Crosno contained a “pay-when-paid” provision stating that Clark would pay Crosno within a reasonable time after receiving payment from the District. In defining “a reasonable time,” the subcontract language provided that the time for payment “in no event shall be less than the time [Clark] and [Crosno] require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against [District] or other responsible party to obtain payment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
    Mr. McNamara may be contacted at

    Contractor Prevailing Against Subcontractor On Common Law Indemnity Claim

    June 29, 2020 —
    Common law indemnity is not an easy claim to prove as the one seeking common law indemnity MUST be without fault: Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him, but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other and is allowable only where the whole fault is in the one against whom indemnity is sought. It shifts the entire loss from one who, although without active negligence or fault, has been obligated to pay, because of some vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical liability, to another who should bear the costs because it was the latter’s wrongdoing for which the former is held liable. Brother’s Painting & Pressure Cleaning Corp. v. Curry-Dixon Construction, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D259b (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) quoting Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490, 492-93 (Fla. 1979). Not only must the one seeking common law indemnity be without fault, but there also needs to be a special relationship between the parties (indemnitee and common law indemnitor) for common law indemnification to exist. Brother’s Painting & Pressure Cleaning Corp., supra (citation omitted). A special relationship has been found to exist between a general contractor and its subcontractors. Id. at n.2. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues

    August 10, 2020 —
    The COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility. Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, Douglas Weck and Victor Zarrilli Mr. Devine may be contacted at Mr. Weck may be contacted at Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of