• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominium expert witness Ashburn Virginia production housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia hospital construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia casino resort expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom homes expert witness Ashburn Virginia office building expert witness Ashburn Virginia Medical building expert witness Ashburn Virginia low-income housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia parking structure expert witness Ashburn Virginia industrial building expert witness Ashburn Virginia retail construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia custom home expert witness Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia institutional building expert witness Ashburn Virginia condominiums expert witness Ashburn Virginia multi family housing expert witness Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia townhome construction expert witness Ashburn Virginia tract home expert witness Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia concrete expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert witness public projectsAshburn Virginia roofing construction expertAshburn Virginia construction expertsAshburn Virginia expert witness concrete failureAshburn Virginia expert witness structural engineerAshburn Virginia slope failure 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

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

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

    Coverage Found for Faulty Workmanship Damaging Other Property

    Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Millennials Skip the Ring and Mortgage

    Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at Faster Pace in January

    Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

    Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

    Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

    Bertha – The Tunnel is Finished, but Her Legacy Continues

    Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

    In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

    Let it Shine: California Mandates Rooftop Solar for New Residential Construction

    North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In

    Homebuilders Offer Hope for U.K. Economy

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

    Failure to Comply with Contract Leaves No Additional Insured Coverage

    Chinese Demand Rush for Australia Homes to Stay, Ausin Says

    Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots

    Senate Committee Approves Military Construction Funds

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

    Between Scylla and Charybids: The Mediation Privilege and Legal Malpractice Claims

    Client Alert: Release of Liability Agreement Extinguishes Duty of Ordinary Care

    Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims

    Terminating the Notice of Commencement (with a Notice of Termination)

    Golf Resorts Offering Yoga, Hovercraft Rides to the Green

    Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

    Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

    Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

    Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

    Panama Weighs Another Canal Expansion at Centennial Mark

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

    California Court Holds No Coverage Under Pollution Policy for Structural Improvements

    BLOK, a Wired UK Hottest 100 Housing Market Startup, Gets Funding from a Renowned Group of Investors

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence

    Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

    The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception
    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

    N.J. Governor Signs Bill Expanding P3s

    September 04, 2018 —
    Government entities in New Jersey that enter into public-private partnerships to help finance public construction projects are now required to utilize a project labor agreement (PLA) and pay state prevailing wages, among other requirements. Previously, P3s were only available to state and county colleges, but did not contain prevailing wage or PLA mandates. The new law, Senate Bill 865, allows the state and its subdivisions, including counties, municipalities and school districts, to enter into agreements with private funding sources provided they follow the additional mandates such as abiding by the state’s prevailing wage law and utilizing a union-only PLA for construction of the project. Reprinted courtesy of Nick Steingart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of
    Mr. Steingart may be contacted at

    Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

    July 02, 2018 —
    California law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report. The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at Mr. Chazen may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Musk Says ‘Chicago Express’ Tunnel Project Could Start Work in Months

    August 14, 2018 —
    Technology guru Elon Musk beat three other construction proposals on June 14 to win the exclusive right to negotiate a design-build-operate-maintain contract with the City of Chicago to provide a high-speed underground passenger transport system between the downtown Loop area and O’Hare Airport. He proposes a one-way trip of about 12 minutes at 150 mph compared with the current 40-minute average by rail or car. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
    Mr. Yoders may be contacted at

    Where Mechanic’s Liens and Contracts Collide

    July 02, 2018 —
    Today at Construction Law Musings, we’re back to a discussion of mechanic’s liens. This past week, the Loudoun County Circuit Court here in Virginia had an opportunity to discuss the interaction between mechanic’s liens, contracts and the law of fixtures. In TWP Enters. v Dressel, the Court considered a provision of a contract between the TWP Enterprises, a supplier of materials to the construction project, and the builder for the defendant. The provision between the supplier and builder essentially stated that until such time as TWP’s materials were paid for in full, TWP kept title to them (check out the case link above for the full text of the provision). Needless to say, the builder did not pay and TWP filed a mechanic’s lien then sued to enforce that lien. The owners demurred to the complaint and asked the Court to dismiss the claim on several grounds, among them that the contractual provision described above precluded the enforcement of the lien because TWP retained title to the materials despite the fact that they had been incorporated into the structure of the building and were therefore part of the realty. 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

    South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

    June 13, 2018 —
    The ramp-up of cybersecurity regulation, albeit in a patchwork fashion through state-level legislation, has begun. On May 18, 2018, South Carolina enacted the Insurance Data Security Act (Act), becoming the first state to pass legislation based upon the Insurance Data Security Model Law that was approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) last October. The Act makes very little change to the model law’s text, which in turn, is based on 23 NYCRR § 500, et seq., the cybersecurity regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services in March 2017. The Act establishes stringent standards for both data security programs, and an entity’s response to a “cybersecurity event” through an organized and methodical investigation and notification to the state’s Department of Insurance. Like New York’s cybersecurity regulations, the Act requires insurers to submit to the Department of Insurance annual certification of compliance and has a ratcheted implementation of portions of the legislation on insurers and brokers operating or otherwise licensed to do business in the state. It does not create a private cause of action. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Richard Borden, Sedgwick Jeanite and Joshua Mooney Mr. Borden may be contacted at Mr. Jeanite may be contacted at Mr. Mooney may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates Awarded Silver Star Award at WCC Construction Defect Seminar

    May 24, 2018 —
    The staff of the Construction Defect Journal would like to extend their congratulations to Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., in recognition of his receipt of the Silver Star Award as “Best Expert” at the 25th Anniversary of the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar, hosted at the Disneyland Resort Hotel, in Anaheim CA. Recipients of the Silver Star Awards were nominated and voted on by their peers, colleagues, and the Construction Defect Community at large, as represented by the 25,000 members who received emails on the subject. Along with “Best Expert,” recognition was also given to the best judge, mediator, plaintiff attorney, developer attorney, subcontractor attorney, coverage counsel, and insurance claims professional. Awards were handed out last Thursday during a special ceremony at this year’s Seminar. To Don, and all the worthy awardees, congratulations again! Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Selected Environmental Actions Posted on the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulator Actions

    November 06, 2018 —
    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, housed in the Office of Management and Budget, has issued the Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions to be taken over the next several months by federal executive departments and agencies. This report will highlight some of the environmental actions, to be proposed or finalized soon by these agencies. Eventually, the Agenda will be published in the Federal Register. 1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA, of course, has listed by far the largest number of actions. For instance, EPA’s agenda lists 92 separate actions to be taken under its Clean Air Act (CAA) authority. As an example, EPA reports that it will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in May 2019 of its proposals to increase consistency and true transparency in considering the cost benefit of its proposed rules, and review the standards of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed sources of greenhouse gas emissions by means of an NPRM to be issued in November 2018. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

    May 16, 2018 —
    In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of