• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Alberta Virginia custom home expert witness Alberta Virginia condominium expert witness Alberta Virginia townhome construction expert witness Alberta Virginia production housing expert witness Alberta Virginia custom homes expert witness Alberta Virginia tract home expert witness Alberta Virginia Subterranean parking expert witness Alberta Virginia retail construction expert witness Alberta Virginia industrial building expert witness Alberta Virginia Medical building expert witness Alberta Virginia high-rise construction expert witness Alberta Virginia parking structure expert witness Alberta Virginia multi family housing expert witness Alberta Virginia office building expert witness Alberta Virginia condominiums expert witness Alberta Virginia housing expert witness Alberta Virginia institutional building expert witness Alberta Virginia casino resort expert witness Alberta Virginia landscaping construction expert witness Alberta Virginia low-income housing expert witness Alberta Virginia concrete tilt-up expert witness Alberta Virginia
    Alberta Virginia expert witness windowsAlberta Virginia expert witness roofingAlberta Virginia construction expert testimonyAlberta Virginia engineering consultantAlberta Virginia hospital construction expert witnessAlberta Virginia construction claims expert witnessAlberta Virginia ada design expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Expert Witness Engineer Builders Information
    Alberta, 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 Alberta 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
    Tidewater Builders Association
    Local # 4854
    2117 Smith Ave
    Chesapeake, VA 23320

    Alberta Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Peninsula Housing & Builders Association
    Local # 4844
    760 McGuire Pl
    Newport News, VA 23601

    Alberta Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Southside VA
    Local # 4863
    10300 Corporate Road
    Petersburg, VA 23805

    Alberta Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    New River Valley Home Builders Association
    Local # 4837
    PO Box 2010
    Christiansburg, VA 24068

    Alberta Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Builders & Associates of Southern VA
    Local # 4829
    PO Box 10178 Ste 28
    Danville, VA 24543
    Alberta Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association
    Local # 4881
    1626 Apperson Dr
    Salem, VA 24153

    Alberta Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Central VA
    Local # 4827
    20334 Timberlake Rd Ste 3
    Lynchburg, VA 24502

    Alberta Virginia Expert Witness Engineer 10/ 10

    Expert Witness Engineer News and Information
    For Alberta Virginia

    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District

    Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

    All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

    Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies

    Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

    Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

    An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

    Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

    Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

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

    Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

    No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

    Recovery Crews Swing Into Action as Hurricane Michael Departs

    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    New Jersey Courts Speed Up Sandy Litigation

    10 Safety Tips for General Contractors

    Union THUGS Plead Guilty

    Window Manufacturer Weathers Recession by Diversifying

    Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

    Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    Do Change Orders Need to be in Writing and Other Things That Might Surprise You

    Texas Legislative Update

    Court Narrowly Interprets “Faulty Workmanship” Provision

    No Coverage For Damage Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

    Sacramento’s Commercial Construction Market Heats Up

    What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

    CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program

    Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

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

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard

    Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

    Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

    Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

    OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected

    Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

    Colorado Adopts Twombly-Iqbal “Plausibility” Standard

    Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation

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

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

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


    The Alberta, 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
    Alberta, Virginia

    Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

    February 11, 2019 —
    In its recent decision in Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2019 WL 134614 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had occasion to consider the application of a prior knowledge provision in the context of a claim for mold and water-related bodily injury and property damage. Philadelphia insured a condominium property management company under a general liability insurance policy for the period September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008. In 2009, the insured was sued by a unit owner alleging bodily injury and property damage resulting from toxic mold conditions resulting from leaks that had been identified in her unit as early as 2004. Notably, the complaint alleged that mold was identified in 2006 and that repair efforts were undertaken, but that these efforts all proved unsuccessful. Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to vacate her apartment in 2008 as a result of the conditions. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Margolies may be contacted at

    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

    Doing Construction Lead Programs the Right Way

    October 16, 2018 —
    Running a construction business takes hard work. When you are working on a job, it can be difficult to find time to spend on marketing and advertising. If you are short on time, buying leads through construction lead programs could be a good way to meet new customers, grow your business, and find your next job. Keep reading to learn more about some of the pros and cons of buying leads. A construction lead generation service exists solely to connect home owners with local home improvement contractors. They market across different construction specialties and reach customers who are looking for construction companies. Once they capture the ‘lead’, which is essentially the contact information and a few project details of that potential customer, they sell the lead to one or more local contractors in their network. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natalie Craigmile, Construction Informer

    Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

    October 02, 2018 —
    As we come to the end of Summer, the California Contractors State License Board advises licensees that it has finalized its Solar Energy System Disclosure Document. The Solar Energy System Disclosure Document, required under Business and Professions Code Section 7169 as amended by Assembly Bill 1070 in 2017, requires that the disclosure language of the document be:
    1. Included in all contracts providing for the installation of a “solar energy system” on a residential building;
    2. Included on the front page or cover page of the contract;
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Second Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of NY’s Zero Emissions Credit Program

    November 21, 2018 —
    On September 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the “Zero Emissions Credit” (ZEC) program of the New York Public Service Commission is not unconstitutional. The case is Coalition for Competitive Electricity, et al. v. Zibelman, Chair of the New York Public Service Commission, et al. In effect, the ZEC program provides subsidies to qualifying New York nuclear power plants as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The ZEC program is intended to prevent nuclear plants from being prematurely retired from generating power until suitable replacement facilities are operating. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

    August 20, 2018 —
    Danny the Developer wishes to build Greenacre, a large residential and retail condominium complex in downtown Boston. However, Danny’s lender – the Bank of Barbara – will not lend Danny the money to develop the complex unless Danny’s architect signs a lender certificate. Danny presents the lender certificate to Allie the Architect, the certificate is relatively short and simple, it states:
    “Allie the Architect prepared plans and specifications relating to Greenacre. Allie the Architect certifies that the plans are in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, housing and other laws, ordinances, regulations including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and the Americans with Disability Act. The Plans do not encroach over, across or upon any such easements, rights-of-way, or subsurface rights and the like. Allie further certifies that the load bearing capacity of the soil is adequate to support the plans. The Bank of Barbara shall rely upon Allie the Architects certification in loaning money to Danny the Developer for Greenacre.”
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Goodelman may be contacted at

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    February 11, 2019 —
    These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:
    The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks: The Spearin Doctrine and Design-Build Projects

    October 30, 2018 —
    The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has now held that the Spearin doctrine applies to design-build subcontractors where the subcontractor is expected to design a portion of their work. The case is United States for the use and benefit of Bonita Pipeline, Inc., et al. v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC, et al. (“Bonita Pipeline”) (Case No. 3:16-cv-00983-H-AGS). In Bonita Pipeline, a subcontractor sued the general contractor and its sureties alleging breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, declaratory relief, and recovery under the Miller Act. The subcontractor then filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the general contractor on its declaratory relief cause of action, seeking a finding that the general contractor could not shift legal responsibility for its defective plans and specifications to the subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John Castro, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
    Mr. Castro may be contacted at