• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia condominiums building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia soil failure expert witnessAshburn Virginia consulting architect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction code expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction expert testimonyAshburn Virginia construction scheduling expert witnessAshburn Virginia multi family design expert witnessAshburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Building Expert 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".

    Building Expert 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.

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

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

    Ashburn Virginia Building Expert 10/ 10

    Building Expert News and Information
    For Ashburn Virginia

    How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

    New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

    Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision

    Insured's Claim for Replacement Cost Denied

    Crane Dangles and So Do Insurance Questions

    Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Affordable Housing should not be Filled with Defects

    It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule

    Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

    Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued

    California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014

    Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

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

    Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

    Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

    Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

    Manhattan Condo Lists for Record $150 Million

    Intentional Mining Neighbor's Property is Not an Occurrence

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

    New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota

    Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case

    NAHB Reports on U.S. Jobs Created from Home Building

    Construction Is Holding Back the Economy

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Foundation Differences Across the U.S.

    Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

    That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

    Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Damage to Plaintiffs' Home Caused By Unmoored Boats Survives Surface Water Exclusion

    Few Homes Available to Reno Buyers, Plenty of Commercial Properties

    Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects

    Builder and County Tussle over Unfinished Homes

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship Claim

    Perovskite: The Super Solar Cells

    Preserving Your Construction Claim

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts
    Corporate Profile


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

    Building Expert News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

    August 19, 2015 —
    First there was “Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Because he Changed His Name to a Symbol), But Then Realized That No One Could Pronounce the Symbol (and What Good is a Symbol if Everyone Has to Wave Their Hands Wildly at You to Get Your Attention or Scream ‘Hey You!’), and So Changed His Name Back to Prince Again.” Whatever name (or symbol) he was going by, everyone knew him as the guy who told us to party like it was 1999 (when 1999 still seemed like the distant future), who sang about a girl with a “pocket full of horses” (which totally flew past my junior high school brain at the time), and gave us such great metaphors as “if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy, punch a higher floor!” Like Prince or his symbol, sometimes it doesn’t matter what label you put on something when everyone knows what that something is. In law, we call it looking at the “substance” rather than its “form.” And, in the next case, Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District made quick work of a purported “lease-leaseback” project – a project delivery method available to school districts whereby a school district leases property it owns to a developer for a minimum of $1, who in turns builds a school facility on the site and leases the facility and the site back to the school district, who in turn takes ownership of the facility and site at the end of the lease – and called it for what it was: a run-of-the-mill “design-bid-build” project. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

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

    June 09, 2016 —
    While construction can sometimes be risky, construction litigation is almost always expensive. This volatile mix of risk and expense has made risk shifting, through indemnity and insurance, a primary goal and concern of project owners, contractors and suppliers alike. Construction insurers know this all too well and insurers, even between themselves, seek to shift risk. As one primary insurer found, however, risk shifting provisions in their policies – specifically, one which sought to shift the cost of defense to another insurer – is not without its limitations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    September 03, 2014 —
    Prices for previously owned Manhattan condominiums rose to a record last month even as an increase in the supply of units eased competition among buyers. An index of resale prices climbed 1.1 percent from June to reach the highest level in data going back to 1995,, a New York real estate website, said in a report today. The inventory of condos on the market grew 5.4 percent from a year earlier, the biggest annual gain since October 2009. The market is still tight, with the number of available condos about 16 percent below the five-year average for Manhattan. That will continue to drive up prices, according to StreetEasy, which projects a 0.4 percent increase for August. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
    Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at

    Big League Dreams a Nightmare for Town

    April 03, 2013 —
    The town of Gilbert, Arizona had their own big dreams for Big League Dreams Gilbert, which the town was convinced would bring in financial benefits. Now the amateur sports complex is plagued by defects and failing infrastructure. The town was wondering how to create sufficient recreation facilities when Big League Dreams made a proposal that would bring tax revenue from a new stadium complex. Ten years later, Gilbert says it’s not getting enough of the revenue from the parks. The proposal, created by Big League Dreams, estimated an economic benefit of $40 million over 30 years with a construction cost of $22.7 million. Instead, construction ran to $42.7 million and over the last two years the town has received only $250,570. Then there are the construction defects. The structure was warranteed for only one year. That warrantee long over, the complex has problems with various concrete surfaces and has generated injury claims. The town did not inspect the park after Big League Dreams started operating it. They later found out that some parts did not conform to code, with 39 problem areas referenced in a report. Some of these included safety issues like missing handrails. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Illinois Couple Files Suit Against Home Builder

    January 15, 2014 —
    Last December, Norman and Valerie Adkins, a couple in Edwardsville, Illinois, filed suit against their home builder, Customary Construction, and contractor Kevin M. Kahrig, alleging that the defendants did not build their deck according to code, Kelly Holleran of the Madison Record reported. According to the complaint as stated by the Madison Record, the Adkins purchased the home from the defendants in October of 2010. The couple notified Kahrig (the Customary Construction owner) regarding cracks along the perimeter of their deck that had not been caulked. Kahrig sent a crew to fix the cracks, but the Adkins were unhappy with the work, the complaint states. The Adkins hired a masonry contractor to fix the deck, and the contractor found “structural issues with the arches and brick columns supporting the deck at the back of their home,” reported the Madison Record. The Adkins then hired an engineer who “inspected the deck and reported that it had been improperly constructed and needed to be removed and replaced,” according to the complaint. The engineer continued, “The current condition of the deck is a safety hazard, as there is a risk of collapse and loose bricks or other masonry materials falling and striking a person within the proximity of the deck.” The Adkins are seeking “a judgment of more than $150,000, plus costs and attorney’s fees,” the Madison Record claims. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

    January 05, 2017 —
    We’ve talked about the Privette doctrine before (see here, here, and here). The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides in general that project owners and contractors are not responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have hired, the rationale being that such workers should already be covered under their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance policies. In the twenty years since Privette was decided, however, several exceptions have evolved that have narrowed the doctrine. One exception, known as the retained control exception, allows a contractor’s employees to sue the “hirer” of the contractor (that is, the higher-tiered party who “hired” the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured) when the hirer retains control over any part of the work and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198. Another exception, known as the nondelegable duty exception, permits an injured worker to recover against a hirer when the hirer has assumed a nondelegable duty, including statutory and regulatory duties, that it breaches in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661. In a recently decided case, Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc., Case No. B268937 (November 17, 2016), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District examined the application of the Hooker and Padilla exceptions where a general contractor was contractually responsible for overall site safety. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

    October 08, 2014 —
    If you have been following our coverage of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Domtar Paper Co., you will recall that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided on May 29, 2014 to hear the subrogated insurer’s appeal,1 despite the Superior Court’s holding against the subrogated insurer—based primarily on its own defective case law2 —and its denial of reargument, presumably due to the insurer’s briefing follies.3 The parties in Domtar, as well as numerous amici curiae (friends of the court),4 have submitted their respective briefs over the last few months, and the Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument to take place on October 8, 2014 in Pittsburgh, Pa. The Court has framed the issue as: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”5 There are three possible outcomes in Domtar. The first (and easiest) possible outcome for the Supreme Court would be to punt to the Pennsylvania General Assembly for a decision on the issue. Workers’ compensation legislation, perhaps more than any other type of legislation, “creates a highly structured balancing of competing interests.”6 It is basic civics that the legislature has a “superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns.”7 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Caplan may be contacted at

    Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

    September 01, 2016 —
    Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced that eleven of their lawyers were recognized on the list of 2016 Rising Stars®:
    • Raymond Babaian: Partner, Rancho Cucamonga
    • Emil Macasinag: Senior Counsel, Los Angeles
    • Amy Pennington: Partner, Los Angeles
    • Christopher Perez: Senior Counsel, Rancho Cucamonga
    • Keith Smith: Partner, Riverside
    • Kevin Gillispie: Partner, Concord
    • Alicia Kennon: Senior Counsel, Concord
    • Eugene Zinovyev: Senior Associate, Concord
    • Timothy Repass: Partner, Seattle and Portland
    • Jodi Mullis: Senior Associate, Phoenix
    • Vincent Beilman: Partner, Tampa and Miami
    • “We are pleased to have 11 of our best selected for this year’s lists,” Dan Berman, Firm Chairman and Founding Partner stated. “We value our selections to Rising Stars because the choices come from our peers. It is truly an honor and a validation of all of the great work we do at WSHB.” Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of