• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia window expert witnessAshburn Virginia roofing construction expertAshburn Virginia structural concrete expertAshburn Virginia stucco expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction cost estimating expert witnessAshburn Virginia eifs expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction claims expert witness
    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

    Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

    Couple Claims Contractor’s Work Is Defective and Incomplete

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    Insurance Attorney Gary Barrera Joins Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group

    Musk’s Cousins Battle Utilities to Make Solar Rooftops Cheap

    Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

    Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

    Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Attorney Fee Award Under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    Housing Stocks Rally at End of November

    Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context

    Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

    In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    Micropiles for bad soil: a Tarheel victory

    Will They Blow It Up?

    Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

    Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

    Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

    Construction Defects could become Issue in Governor’s Race

    Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues

    Fracking Fears Grow as Oklahoma Hit by More Earthquakes Than California

    Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

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

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?

    General Contractors: Consider Importance of "Primary Noncontributory" Language

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

    Video: Contractors’ Update on New Regulations Governing Commercial Use of Drones

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution

    New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    Construction Job Opening Rise in October

    Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    Woman Files Suit for Property Damages

    Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High

    Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

    Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall

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

    A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions
    Corporate Profile


    The Ashburn, Virginia Expert Witness Engineer Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Expert Witness Engineer News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    August 30, 2017 —
    There is no question that organization on the job site can mean the difference between efficient performance and costly errors. A simple mistake can cost a company thousands, which is why details are carefully articulated and supervisors become better scrutinizers than magazine editors. But for some reason, many companies don’t consider managing job site inventory under this same attentive category, or perhaps they don’t know about the technology available to help them do it. Whole Inventory, Big to Small For contractors, keeping track of every piece of material and equipment lowers losses and keeps crews busy. This is especially true for contractors in the trades who often have specialized equipment in inventory such as power supplies, HVAC “smart energy” components or inspection equipment. Once everything is accounted for, the possibility of loss is decreased and there’s a chance to evaluate the use of all materials and equipment. This can show the efficiency of allotted resources. Is there enough equipment on the site to get tasks completed? Is there a need for more? Less? Having excess equipment can sometimes prepare a crew for problem scenarios. But it can also mean the construction company is overpaying for unneeded resources. However, the only way to know is by effectively managing job site inventory. That includes all equipment and materials. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Stark, Construction Informer

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    December 20, 2012 —
    The Pennsylvania courts have long held that there is an implied warranty of habitability for the initial purchaser of a home. Now, as some defects may not immediately show up, the court has extended that implied warranty to second and subsequent purchasers. As Marc D. Brookman, David I. Haas, and Christopher Bender of Duane Morris note, “this judicially created doctrine shifts the risk of a latent defect in the construction of a new home from the purchaser to the builder-vendor.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a contractual relationship is not needed for an implied warranty of habitability. The court’s concern was inequalities would result when a home was sold while other homes were protected by being within the statute of repose. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Toll Plans to Boost New York Sales With Pricing, Incentives

    December 10, 2015 —
    Toll Brothers Inc. plans to use competitive pricing and offer buyers incentives to speed up sales at some of its New York City condominium projects. “There are certain units in certain locations within a building that are hot, and then there are other units that may be in a dark, cold corner that you have to incentivize a bit more,” Chief Executive Officer Douglas Yearley said on the company’s earnings conference call Tuesday. While Toll “will not fire-sale it to move” units, “we will price to the market.” Incentives would be offered for certain units at Pierhouse at Brooklyn Bridge Park and 400 Park Ave. South and 1110 Park Ave. in Manhattan, Yearley said. While the supply in New York City has grown most for condos selling for more than $7.5 million, most of Toll’s units are less expensive, he said. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

    Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

    October 10, 2013 —
    An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bret Cogdill
    Bret Cogdill can be contacted at

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    June 15, 2011 —

    The Sunland Group, the developer, is objecting to claims that it is responsible for corrosion damage in a residential building in Gold Coast, Australia, as reported in the Courier & Mail. Residents of Q1, the world’s tallest residential tower, are suing the developer, claiming that defects and corrosion “compromise the long-term durability and appearance of” the six-year-old building.

    The developer has not only denied that there are defects in the building, but has also stated that the construction contract “did not warrant that the construction would be defects-free.” Sunland claimed that corrosion was due to the homeowners association having “failed to carry out the maintenance requirements.”

    Repair of the building is expected to cost millions of dollars. Sunland denies that it should pay any of that.

    Read the full story…

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Florida trigger

    August 04, 2011 —

    In Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Siena Home Corp., No. 5:08-CV-385-Oc-10GJK (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2011), insured residential real estate developer Siena was sued by homeowners seeking damages for moisture penetration property damage resulting from exterior wall construction defects. Siena’s CGL insurer Mid-Continent filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of no duty to defend or indemnify in part on the basis that the alleged “property damage” did not manifest during the Mid-Continent policy period.

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

    October 28, 2011 —

    After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).

    The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.

    High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

    High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.

    Read the full story...

    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at

    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

    October 21, 2015 —
    The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at