BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    office building building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia condominiums building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia roofing construction expertAshburn Virginia construction expert witness public projectsAshburn Virginia construction claims expert witnessAshburn Virginia contractor expert witnessAshburn Virginia eifs expert witnessAshburn Virginia building consultant expertAshburn Virginia multi family design 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


    Waive Not, Want Not: Waivers and Releases on California Construction Projects

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

    #8 CDJ Topic: The Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case Concludes but Controversy Continues

    NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

    Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?

    Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL

    South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

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

    Timber Prices Likely to Keep Rising

    Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case

    Pinnacle Controls in Verano

    New York Condominium Association Files Construction Defect Suit

    Netherlands’ Developer Presents Modular Homes for Young Professionals

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

    Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

    My Construction Law Wish List

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    UConn’s Law-School Library Construction Case Settled for Millions

    Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

    Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

    Construction Defect Claim not Barred by Prior Arbitration

    Housing Starts in U.S. Drop to Lowest Level in Three Months

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: Indemnity Provisions

    Record-Setting Construction in Fargo

    North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

    Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

    Proposed Florida Construction Defect Act

    The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block

    South Dakota Supreme Court Holds That Faulty Workmanship Constitutes an “Occurrence”

    Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution

    Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

    Luxury-Apartment Boom Favors D.C.’s Millennial Renters

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    New Jersey Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Coverage Gap Dispute

    Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

    Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    Irene May Benefit Construction Industry

    S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

    Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

    TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

    Recommencing Construction on a Project due to a Cessation or Abandonment

    No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

    Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Building Expert 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.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Florida trigger

    May 18, 2011 —

    In Johnson-Graham-Malone, Inc. v. Austwood Enterprises, Inc., No. 16-2009-CA-005750-XXXX-MA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Duval County, April 29, 2011), insured JGM was the general contractor for an apartment project completed in 1998. In 2007, the project owner sued JGM seeking damages for defective construction resulting in moisture penetration property damage. JGM tendered its defense to Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense. JGM defended and settled the underlying suit and then filed suit against Amerisure seeking recovery of defense and settlement costs. The trial court granted JGM’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court first addressed Amerisure’s duty to defend. Applying Florida law, the court held that, although the underlying complaint alleged that the property damage was not discovered until after expiration of the Amerisure policies

    Read the full story…

    Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

    California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

    July 30, 2014 —
    California is building a “world-class $56 million training facility in eastern Sacramento County that would pit fire crews against a variety of realistic, pressure-packed simulated disasters,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Construction has begun on the Emergency Response Training Center in Mather Field in Rancho Cordova. “The project is a joint effort between Henke’s fire department, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Sacramento Fire Department,” reported the Sacramento Bee. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    November 23, 2016 —
    The Illinois Appellate Court determined the general contractor was not covered for construction defects despite allegations of damage to personal property. Wesfield Ins. Co. v. West Van Buren, LLC, 59 N.E. 2d 877, (Ill. Ct. App. 2016). The developer constructed a condominium development in Chicago. The installation of the roof was contracted to Total Roofing. Total Roofing agreed to insure and indemnify the developer against liability for Total Roofing's work. Total Roofing obtained a CGL policy with Westfield Insurance Company listing the developer as an additional insured. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Homeowner Alleges Pool Construction Is Defective

    November 13, 2013 —
    A Texas man is suing the contractor who built his pool alleging that within months of construction, the pool began to crack and leak water. According to the lawsuit from Larry Merendino, when the concrete contractor, PC Construction, removed some concrete, they found PVC joints that were not glued properly and were leaking. Mr. Merendino is suing the company and five other firms, claiming that the construction of his pool was negligent and that the companies operated by deceptive trade practices. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Underpowered AC Not a Construction Defect

    November 07, 2012 —
    After buying a home in Louisiana, Mike Gines determined that the home’s air conditioning unit was insufficient to maintain an appropriate temperature. He contacted the home builder, D.R. Horton, Inc., which worked with the air conditioning installer, Reliant Heating & Air Conditioning, in order to repair the system. When the problems persisted, Gines filed a class action petition against Horton and Reliant in state court. Horton and Reliant moved the case to the federal courts, whereupon Gines asserted the defendants were in violation of the Louisiana New Home Warranty Act (NHWA). Horton stated that the claim under the NHWA was invalid, because Gines had not alleged actual physical damage to his home. The district court granted Horton’s motion to dismiss. Gines sought a reversal from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and sought to have two questions of state law addressed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The district court ruled that the NHWA was the “sole remedy under Louisiana law for a purchaser of a new home with construction defects. Gines argued that court erred in this, but also conceded that this was the conclusion of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Further, Gines argued that a provision in the NHWA that allows the inclusion of construction defects that do not cause damage was satisfied by paragraph 6 of the contract. The court noted that Gines did not attach a copy of the contract to either the original or amended complaint, and so the court does not need to address these claims. However, the court cautioned that if a copy had been included, they still would have rejected the claim, as “the cited language does not indicate a waiver of the physical damage requirement.” They also note that “paragraph 13 of the contract shows that Gines was aware to the absence of any such waiver in the contract.” The court concludes that “the moral of this story is that in order to avoid the harsh result that has obtained here, the buyer of a newly constructed home in Louisiana should seek to obtain in the contract of sale an express waiver of the actual damage requirement of the NHWA.” The appeals court affirmed the decision of the circuit court and denied the application to certify questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Practical Pointers for Change Orders on Commercial Construction Contracts

    December 31, 2014 —
    Construction projects pose unique challenges, including keeping costs within budget, meeting project deadlines, and coordinating the work of numerous contractors and subcontractors in the wake of inevitable design revisions and changes to the plans. Anticipating potential project challenges and negotiating contract provisions before commencing work on a project is critical for all parties. Careful planning should reduce the number of contract disputes. This, in turn, can facilitate the completion of a project within budget and on schedule. “Changes” Clauses in Construction Contracts Most commercial construction contracts have a clause addressing changes to the contract. A “changes” clause typically requires the mutual agreement of the parties on the scope of any modifications to the contract, as well as the effect on the contract price and timeframe for the work to be performed. This results in what is generally referred to as a “change order.” Many projects have a large number of change orders, which can result in significant cost overruns and delays to the project if the contract contains a complicated change order process. Therefore, in order to minimize cost overruns and project delays, it is crucial to keep the change order process as simplified and streamlined as possible. In the most basic terms, change orders memorialize modifications to the original contract, and typically alter the contract's price, scope of work, and/or completion dates. A typical change order is a written document prepared by the owner or its design professional, and signed by the owner, design professional, and affected contractors and subcontractors. An executed change order indicates the parties’ agreement as to what changes are taking place, including approval for additional costs and schedule impacts. While the reasons for change orders and the parties initiating them may vary, all change orders have one feature in common. Effective change orders alter the original contract and become part of the contract. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, change orders must be approached with the same caution and forethought as the original contract. Practice Pointers for Change Orders In light of the foregoing, some practice pointers for change orders in commercial construction contracts are as follows:
    • Carefully Negotiate and Draft Change Order Provisions in the Original Contract. A carefully negotiated and drafted “changes” clause that accounts for “unexpected circumstances” or “hidden conditions” can protect the parties from downstream costly disputes.
    • Immediately Address Changes by Following the Change Order Process, Including Obtaining Necessary Signatures. Regardless if you are an owner, general contractor or subcontractor, you should address any proposed change order immediately. Even if a decision maker gives “verbal” approval to go ahead with changed work, the work should not proceed without following the change order process in the original contract. This includes making sure to obtain any necessary signatures for the change order, if at all possible.
    • Analyze the Plans and Specifications to Determine Whether “Changes” are Within the Scope of the Original Contract, or Whether They are Extra Work. Prior to entering an original contract, it is imperative that the parties review the plans and specifications for ambiguities regarding work included in the original contract, versus potential extra work that would require a change order. This is important because a careful review of the plans and specifications sometimes reveals that work believed to be a change order is, in fact, original work, or vice versa.
    • Make Sure Requests and Approvals for Change Orders are Done by an Authorized Representative. When a party requests or gives its approval to a change order, it is important to confirm the request or approval came from an authorized representative.
    • Avoid Vague and Open-Ended Change Orders. Indeed, the vaguer a change order, the more likely it can lead to a dispute. Vague and open-ended change orders, including change orders that provide for payment on a time and materials basis, can be difficult for an owner to budget and schedule. This can lead to disputes as to cost and/or time extensions.
    • Oral Assurances for Payment Without a Signed Change Order May Not Be Recoverable. When a party provides verbal assurances to another party for extra work without following the change order process, there is a much higher likelihood that disputes will occur. Although there is case law that may allow a contractor to recover for extra work in private contracts based on oral promises, the parties should avoid placing themselves in such a legal position. Notably, in public contracts, a contractor may not be able to recover for any extra work without a signed changed order, even with verbal assurances of payment from the owner.
    About the Author: John E. Bowerbank, Newmeyer & Dillion Mr. Bowerbank is a partner in the Newport Beach office and practices in the areas of business, insurance, real estate, and construction litigation. You can reach John at john.bowerbank@ndlf.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    October 21, 2015 —
    In responding to a certified question from the U.S. Distric Court, the Hawaii Supreme Court determined that an excess carrier can sue the primary carrier for failure to settle a claim in bad faith within primary limits. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Haw. LEXIS 142 (Haw. June 29, 2015). St. Paul, the excess carrier, and Liberty Mutual, the primary carrier, issued polices to Pleasant Travel Service, Inc. The primary policy covered up to $1 million. Pleasant Travel was sued for damages resulting from an accidental death. St. Paul alleged that Liberty Mutual rejected multiple pretrial settlement offers within the $1 million primary policy limit. A trial resulted in a verdict of $4.1 million against Pleasant Travel. The action settled for a confidential amount in excess of the Liberty Mutual policy limit. St. Paul paid the amount in excess. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Options When there is a Construction Lien on Your Property

    June 02, 2016 —
    There is a construction lien on my property. What are my best options? I hear this question quite a bit…so here it goes… (1) Do nothing. That’s right – do nothing. If you are not looking to sell your house or refinance in the next year or so, you can do nothing and see whether the lienor files a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit. The lienor has one year from the recording of the lien to file the lawsuit. (2) Record a Notice of Contest of Lien. The Notice of Contest of Lien shortens the lienor’s statue of limitations to foreclose on the lien from one year to 60 days. If the lienor fails to foreclose on the lien within 60 days, the lien is extinguished by operation of law. This is the route I tend to prefer. If the lienor is going to file a lien foreclosure lawsuit, I tend to think it is better forcing the issue on the front end as opposed to waiting a year. But every situation is different. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com