BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAshburn Virginia building code compliance expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction scheduling expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witness consultantAshburn Virginia construction claims expert witnessAshburn Virginia architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia stucco 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


    Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion

    Hotel Owner Makes Construction Defect Claim

    Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

    Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

    New Jersey Condominium Owners Sue FEMA

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    Wells Fargo Shuns Peers’ Settlement in U.S in Mortgage

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

    Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"

    Neighbors Fight to Halt Construction after Asbestos found on Property

    Women Make Slow Entry into Building Trades

    2014 WCC Panel: Working Smarter with Technology

    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Williams v. Athletic Field: Hugely Important Lien Case Argued Before Supreme Court

    Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

    California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast

    Distinguishing Hawaii Law, New Jersey Finds Anti-Assignment Clause Ineffective

    Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

    Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

    Florida Former Public Works Director Fined for Ethics Violation

    Pennsylvania “occurrence”

    Heathrow Tempts Runway Opponents With $1,200 Christmas Sweetener

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Fannie-Freddie Elimination Model in Apartments: Mortgages

    Loan Snarl Punishes Spain Builder Backed by Soros, Gates

    Eighth Circuit Remands to Determine Applicability of Collapse Exclusion

    ETF Bulls Bet Spring Will Thaw the U.S. Housing Market

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Insurer’s Attempt to Shift Cost of Defense to Another Insurer Found Void as to Public Policy

    The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

    LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job

    Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    Is Construction in Arizona Back to Normal?

    Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes

    California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

    America’s Infrastructure Gets a D+

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    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

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    October 15, 2014 —
    In a new lawsuit, the Signature Place Condominium Association claims "it is spending ‘large sums' of money to repair problems ranging from cracks in exterior walls to improper fire wall installation to excessive noise from air-conditioning and heating systems,” according to the Tampa Bay Times. The lawsuit also stated that “some of the alleged defects were hidden by building components and finishes and thus were not discovered by owners "until after the purchase and occupancy of the unit,” reported the Tampa Bay Times. The association “seeks damages in excess of $15,000, cites more than 100 other alleged construction and design defects.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    December 31, 2014 —
    A recent lawsuit filed in California over the proper documentation necessary for LEED certification (discussed in detail at the Green Building Law Update) emphasizes the fact that, no matter how detailed the LEED certification process seems to be, a mere reference to that process or a certain level of LEED certification is far from sufficient to assure a smooth project. While I don’t practice in California and don’t have any idea how the lawsuit will turn out, the fact that there is litigation over even the basics of LEED like documentation shows the clear necessity to make sure that your specifications and contract documents are specific and clear from the beginning. Owners, General Contractors and Subcontractors need to remember this fact at all times and particularly in situations where, like in the instance of LEED, the “specification” seems to be set out by others. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    After Sixty Years, Subcontractors are Back in the Driver’s Seat in Bidding on California Construction Projects

    September 22, 2016 —
    For almost the last sixty years, the standard for bidding on California construction projects has been governed by the landmark case of Drennan v. Star Paving (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409; which generally states that the contractor bidding to perform work for a project owner is entitled to rely on the bids of subcontractors in formulating its own bid to do the work. Under the equitable legal doctrine of “promissory estoppel”, which serves as the foundation of the Drennan case, even though there was no actual “contract” between the contractor and subcontractor at the time of bid, the contractor was entitled to enforce the subcontractor’s bid in reliance on this doctrine. For bidding purposes, promissory estoppel serves as an equitable substitute for an actual contract. The courts have, since that time, allowed promissory estoppel to act as a substitute for the contract in public bidding because, in equity, when a contractor “reasonably” relies on a subcontractor’s bid in formulating its own bid, it would be unjust to allow the subcontractor to withdraw a bid on which the contractor had relied in submitting its own successful bid. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
    Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

    A Homeowner’s Subsequent Action is Barred as a Matter of Law by way of a Prior “Right to Repair Act” Claim Resolved by Cash Settlement for Waiver of all Known or Unknown Claims

    February 26, 2015 —
    David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525 OVERVIEW In a decision published on February 17, 2015, the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waivers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld. In brief, the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release. DISCUSSION Plaintiff and Appellant, David Belasco ("Belasco"), purchased a newly construction home in Manhattan Beach from builder Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). Two years after purchasing the property, Belasco filed a Complaint for construction defects, which eventually resulted in settlement between the parties. The settlement agreement included a California Civil Code Section 1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims with the word "claims" defined in part as “any and all known and unknown construction defects." Six years later in 2012, Belasco filed a Complaint alleging a claim, amongst others, that the defective and leaky roof breached the statutory warranty on new construction under California Civil Code section 896 ("Right to Repair Act"). Relying on San Diego Hospice v. County of San Diego (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1048, Wells and Wells' surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company (collectively "Wells"), filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the 2012 action was barred by the settlement of Belasco’s prior Complaint against Wells for construction defects to his home. When the trial court ruled in favor of Wells, Belasco appealed. Belasco, a patent attorney, made the following contentions:(1) the general release and section 1542 wavier in the settlement agreement for patent construction defects is not a "reasonable release" of a subsequent claim for latent construction defects within the meaning of section 929 and the “Right to Repair” Act; (2) a reasonable release can only apply to a "particular violation" and not to a latest defect under the language of section945.5, subdivision (f), and the settlement was too vague to be valid because it does not reference a "particular violation;" (3) section 932 of the California Civil Code specifically authorizes an action on "[s]subsequently discovered claims of unmet standards;" (4) public policy prohibits use of a general release and section 1542 waiver to bar a subsequent claim for latent residential construction defects; and (5) a genuine issue of material fact exists concerning Belasco's fraud and negligence claims that would have voided the settlement pursuant to section 1668. Pursuant to the "Right to Repair Act" Section 929 subsection (a), a builder can make a cash offer in lieu of a repair and the homeowner is free to accept or reject such offer. Section 929subsection (b) goes on to state that
    "[t]he builder may obtain a reasonable release in exchange for the cash payment. The builder may negotiate the terms and conditions of any reasonable release in terms of scope and consideration in conjunction with a cash payment under this chapter."
    The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the prior cash settlement, with a release and section 1524 wavier, was a "reasonable release" under the language of California Civil Code Section 929. On multiple occasions, the Court noted that Belasco is an attorney and was represented by an attorney during the negotiation of the settlement agreement. By executing the agreement with express language regarding what claims were to be release, Belasco released Wells of "any and all claims" due to "any and all known and unknown construction defects." The Court reasoned that because Belasco is an attorney in his own right, he should have understood the import of the Section 1542 waiver and had the opportunity to reject or revise the settlement agreement prior to binding himself to it. The Court further found that the agreement "could not have been more clear" regarding the waiver of all unknown and known construction defect claims and therefore was not vague. Belasco's additional contentions were found to be without merit because Belasco availed himself of the statutory remedy of a cash settlement in lieu of repairs and voluntarily entered into a negotiated settlement agreement. Lastly, Belasco failed to present any evidence regarding his misrepresentation claim. When a homeowner files a "Right to Repair Act" claim, often it seems that only two options exist: either repair the alleged defects or go to court. However, Belasco is a reminder to builders that the "Right to Repair Act" does offer an avenue for settlement. The Second District Court of Appeal presented a clear, unqualified opinion regarding the validity and enforceability of settlement agreements releasing all known or unknown construction defects in a single family home case. The Court will hold parties to the settlements they agree to. This is especially so when one of the parties is an attorney and provides deposition testimony expressly acknowledging that he understood the scope of the agreement. Attorneys for builders should always include a waiver of all known and unknown claims, which pursuant to Belasco and San Diego Hospice, will ensure that any future claims at the property will be effectively barred by the terms of the settlement agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and David A. Napper Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution

    October 28, 2015 —
    In Underwriters of Interest v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co. (No. D066615; filed 10/23/15), a California appeals court refused to enforce an “escape” other insurance clause in an insurer versus insurer contribution action, refused to enforce a Contractors Special Conditions endorsement and found that equitable tolling applied to rule that a nondefending insurer was obligated to reimburse defense costs incurred defending the two insurers’ common insured. Certain Underwriters provided CGL insurance to Pacific Trades Construction & Development in effect between October 23, 2001 and October 23, 2003. ProBuilders Specialty insured Pacific Trades from December 9, 2002 to December 9, 2004. When Pacific Trades was sued in construction defect actions arising out of the development and construction of single family homes, Underwriters provided a defense, while ProBuilders declined to participate. The case was ultimately settled and when Underwriters sued ProBuilders for contribution to the defense costs, the trial court granted summary judgment for ProBuilders, finding its other insurance clause precluded any obligation to contribute or reimburse Underwriters. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Are We Headed for a Work Shortage?

    June 17, 2015 —
    A recent Wall Street Journal article, Worker Shortage Hammers Builders, noted that construction industry employers are facing a tight labor market. “U.S. builders shed more than 2 million jobs during and after the housing bust. Now they say they can’t find enough carpenters, electricians, plumbers and other craftsmen for a growing pipeline of work.” That is certainly consistent with everything that I’ve heard and read about construction companies in the Midwest. Unfortunately, it seems as though the problem is only going to get worse. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    March 29, 2017 —
    The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon recently decided that Carbon Monoxide constitutes a pollutant within the meaning of a pollution exclusion in a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy. In Colony Ins. V. Victory Constr. LLC, No. 3: 16-cv-00457-HZ (Mar. 14, 2017), the District Court considered whether there was coverage for a pool company that allegedly failed to warn of the “risks of carbon monoxide poisoning associated with operating the heater in an insufficiently ventilated area,” leading to carbon monoxide sickness. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    July 30, 2015 —
    The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com