BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia civil engineer expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia structural engineering expert witnessesAshburn Virginia construction forensic expert witnessAshburn Virginia delay claim expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction project management expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction project management expert witnesses
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer 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".


    Expert Witness Engineer 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.


    Expert Witness Engineer Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Northern Virginia Building Industry Association
    Local # 4840
    3901 Centerview Dr Suite E
    Chantilly, VA 20151

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    The Top of Virginia Builders Association
    Local # 4883
    1182 Martinsburg Pike
    Winchester, VA 22603

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Shenandoah Valley Builders Association
    Local # 4848
    PO Box 1286
    Harrisonburg, VA 22803

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Piedmont Virginia Building Industry Association
    Local # 4890
    PO Box 897
    Culpeper, VA 22701

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Fredericksburg Area Builders Association
    Local # 4830
    3006 Lafayette Blvd
    Fredericksburg, VA 22408

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Augusta Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 4804
    PO Box 36
    Waynesboro, VA 22980

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
    Local # 4809
    PO Box 7743
    Charlottesville, VA 22906

    Ashburn Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10


    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Ashburn Virginia


    The Oregon Tort Claims Act (“OTCA”) Applies When a Duty Arises from Statute or Common Law and is Independent from The Terms of a Specific Contract. (OR)

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    Minimum Wage on Federal Construction Projects is $10.10

    Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

    Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants

    The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

    OSHA’s New Severe Injury and Fatality Reporting Requirements, Are You Ready?

    Safer Schools Rendered Unsafe Due to Construction Defects

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Coverage Gap Dispute

    Delays in Filing Lead to Dismissal in Moisture Intrusion Lawsuit

    NY Pay-to-Play Charges Dropped Against LPCiminelli Executive As Another Pleads Guilty

    DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

    Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Used French Fry Oil Fuels London Offices as Buildings Go Green

    Bert L. Howe & Associates Brings Professional Development Series to Their Houston Office

    Texas Windstorm Insurance Agency Under Scrutiny

    Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Excessive Corrosion Cause of Ohio State Fair Ride Accident

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is Not an "Occurrence"

    Homebuilders Go Green in Response to Homebuyer Demand

    Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

    Resolve to Say “No” This Year

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

    Delaware Supreme Court Won’t Halt Building

    California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

    Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    Why Construction Law- An Update

    New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

    Major Changes in Commercial Construction Since 2009

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    BHA Expands Construction Experts Group

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

    Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Florida Contractor on Trial for Bribing School Official

    Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Ashburn, Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 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.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    And the Winner Is . . . The Right to Repair Act!

    February 15, 2018 —
    Civil litigation attorneys often talk about “damages.” Because without damages . . . well . . . you’re out of luck. But damages come in different flavors. In construction litigation, when it comes to defective construction, there are two basic flavors: actual damages and economic damages. Actual damages include property damage and personal injury, such as a defective roof that causes water damage into the interior of the structure or collapses causing injury to someone inside the structure. In contrast, economic damages would be the cost to repair or replace the defective roof, without any resulting property damage or personal injury. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Suit Against Broker for Securing Inadequate Coverage Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

    April 11, 2018 —
    The insured's suit against his broker for securing a policy with insufficient policy limits was dismissed when filed more than two years after the alleged professional negligence occurred. Pritchard v. Andy Houghton Ins. Agency, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018). Pritchard requested coverage for replacement of his property in the event of a total loss by fire. He obtained a policy from Houghton. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

    March 14, 2018 —
    A property insurance policy, no different than any insurance policy, contains exclusions for events that are NOT covered under the terms of the policy. One such common exclusion in a property insurance policy is an exclusion for damages caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days." The application of this exclusion was discussed in the recent opinion of Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, while the insured was out of town, the water line to his refrigerator started to leak. When the insured return home over a month later, the supply line was discharging almost a thousand gallons of water per day. The insured submitted a property insurance claim. The property insurer engaged a consultant that opined (likely, correctly) that the water line had been leaking for at least five weeks. Based on the above-mentioned exclusion, i.e., that water had been constantly leaking for over a period of 14 days, the insurer denied coverage. This denial led to the inevitable coverage dispute. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

    May 24, 2018 —
    Every few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1] The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

    Surviving a Tornado – How to Navigate Insurance Claims in the Wake of the Recent Connecticut Storm

    May 24, 2018 —
    Five minutes after I parked my car, a tree fell on it. On Tuesday, May 15th I pulled into my driveway, in my small Connecticut neighborhood, under a grey sky. As soon as I walked in the house, the lights flickered. And then suddenly there was a loud “Crack!” and “Crash!” and the sound of breaking glass. I looked out the window and trees were bent 90 degrees, then snapping, and then flying up instead of falling down. As quickly as it came, it passed. When I stepped outside, my first thought was that my car has seen better days. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

    A Good Examination of Fraud, Contract and Negligence Per Se

    February 28, 2018 —
    I have spoken on several occasions here at Construction Law Musings about the interplay (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract as it relates to construction in Virginia. The general rule is that fraud and contract claims don’t mix and a fraud claim in the face of a contractual one is likely to be dismissed. However, there are exceptions to this rule as there are to just about every legal rule (we construction lawyers would be out of a job without them). A good examination of the interplay between fraud and contract was set out by the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Zuberi et al v. Hirezi et al. In that case the Zuberis purchased a home from the Hirezis and later filed suit alleging that the Hirezis concealed serious structural defects that made the house uninhabitable and unsellable. Among the many claims by the Zuberis were those fro fraud, fraudulent inducement, constructive fraud, negligence per se, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and civil conspiracy. In short, they were out for blood. 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 chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    U.S. Firm Helps Thais to Pump Water From Cave to Save Boys

    August 14, 2018 —
    Like much of the world, Patrick Decker has been engrossed in the saga of 12 boys and their soccer coach who became trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand. Unlike most, Decker is in a position to do something about it. As chief executive officer of Xylem Inc., one of the world’s top water technology firms, Decker spent much of last week reaching out to Thai officials and mobilizing his company of 17,000 employees to help. Decker said he sent four engineers to the cave site, and they assisted rescuers by boosting pumping power 40 percent. Thai Navy SEALs and international cave diving experts extracted eight boys over Sunday and Monday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Dan Murtaugh, Bloomberg

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    March 14, 2018 —
    On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
    Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com