BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia industrial building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia retail construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia Medical building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia tract home Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia multi family housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia custom homes Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia office building Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia parking structure Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia hospital construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominium Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia production housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia condominiums Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia townhome construction Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia casino resort Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia low-income housing Building Consultant Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia delay claim expert witnessAshburn Virginia ada design expert witnessAshburn Virginia building expertAshburn Virginia construction code expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witnessesAshburn 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


    Homeowner's Claim for Collapse Survives Summary Judgment

    Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

    Stacking of Service Interruption and Contingent Business Interruption Coverages Permitted

    Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

    Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial

    Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

    Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Auditor: Prematurely Awarded Contracts Increased Honolulu Rail Cost by $354M

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

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

    April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much

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

    Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)

    Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

    Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

    Old Case Teaches New Tricks

    Arizona Rooftop Safety: Is it Adequate or Substandard?

    Congress to be Discussing Housing

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

    The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

    40 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Ed Doernberger

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas

    Fire Tests Inspire More Robust Timber Product Standard

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

    The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

    Order for Appraisal Affirmed After Insureds Comply with Post-Loss Obligations

    EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

    Bad Faith Claim for Inadequate Investigation Does Not Survive Summary Judgment

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

    U.S. Housing Starts Exceed Estimates After a Stronger December

    Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

    Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335

    Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

    Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work

    Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

    Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

    Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

    Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful
    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

    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

    Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

    January 28, 2019 —
    In Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test. As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams
    Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

    Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument

    April 10, 2019 —
    Professional liability policies often include some form of a “related claims” or “related acts” provision stating that if more than one claim results from a single wrongful act, or a series of related wrongful acts, such claims will be treated as a single claim and deemed first made during the policy period in which the earliest claim was made. These provisions can have significant implications on the applicable policy and policy limits, retroactive date issues, and whether such claims were first made and reported during a particular policy period. Recently, the Ninth Circuit issued a stern reminder of how the particular policy language can effect, and in this case thwart, the intended scope of the carrier’s “related claims” provision. In Attorneys Ins. Mut. Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2019 WL 643442 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2019), the Ninth Circuit construed a “related claims” provision included in two consecutive lawyers professional liability policies. During both the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 insurance policy periods, attorney J. Wayne Allen (“Allen”) was insured through his employer by Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation’s (“Liberty”) professional liability insurance. Third parties filed suit against Allen during the 2009–2010 policy period in a probate case, and a second, related civil suit during the 2010–2011 policy period. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason M. Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Hexagon Holdings Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. No. 2017-175-Appeal, 2019 R.I. Lexis 14 (January 17, 2019), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, discussing claims associated with allegedly defective construction, addressed issues involving intended beneficiaries to contracts and the application of the economic loss doctrine. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the building owner, Hexagon Holdings, Inc. (Hexagon) was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract between the general contractor (A/Z Corporation) and the subcontractor, defendant McKenna Roofing and Construction, Inc. (McKenna). In addition, the court held that, in the context of this commercial construction contract, the economic loss doctrine applied and barred Hexagon’s negligence claims against McKenna. Approximately nine years after Hexagon entered into a contract with A/Z Corporation for the construction of a building, Hexagon filed suit against A/Z Corporation’s roofing installation subcontractor, McKenna, and the manufacturer of the roofing system. Hexagon alleged that the roof began to leak shortly after McKenna installed it. Notably, Hexagon did not sue A/Z Corporation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.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

    Five Keys to Driving Digital Transformation in Engineering and Construction

    January 02, 2019 —
    Engineering and construction companies increasingly find themselves navigating an era of disruptive and transformative change driven by technology. And with the industry going strong and construction employment recently reaching a 10-year high, more companies recognize that it is time to embrace the efficiencies digital transformation brings, in large part to protect or enhance their competitive position. A report from the Global Industry Council notes that modern technology is moving to the strategic center of E&C business models as part of an evolutionary process. Reprinted courtesy of Rob Phillpot, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Trump Administration Issues Proposed 'Waters of the U.S.' Rule

    December 19, 2018 —
    Construction contractors said a proposed revised definition of “Waters of the United States,” released by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers on Dec. 11, would provide their firms with clarity about what types of permits they will need for their construction projects near various bodies of water. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
    Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

    Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

    February 06, 2019 —
    In newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019). In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:
    “Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com