BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia condominiums building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia construction code expert witnessAshburn Virginia testifying construction expert witnessAshburn Virginia OSHA expert witness constructionAshburn Virginia roofing construction expertAshburn Virginia architectural expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction experts
    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


    Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge

    Las Vegas Harmon Hotel to be Demolished without Opening

    Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

    Colorado Senate Voted to Kill One of Three Construction Defect Bills

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements

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

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest

    Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

    Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary

    Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Ex-Corps Worker Pleads Guilty to Bribery on Afghan Contract

    Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

    Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Luxury Home Sales are on the Rise

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

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

    Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

    Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

    Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

    Insurer Must Defend Insured Against Construction Defect Claims

    Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site

    Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”

    Housing Starts Plunge by the Most in Four Years

    Handling Construction Defect Claims – New Edition Released

    Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

    Carwash Prosecutors Seek $1.6 Billion From Brazil Builders

    Insurers May Not Be Required to Defend Contractors In a Florida §558 Proceeding

    Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

    Wendel Rosen Attorneys Named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America

    New Jersey Supreme Court Issue Important Decision for Homeowners and Contractors

    BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

    Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act

    Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

    Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

    Concrete Worker Wins Lawsuit and Settles with Other Defendant

    The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry

    Falling Crime Rates Make Dangerous Neighborhoods Safe for Bidding Wars

    As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller
    Corporate Profile

    ASHBURN VIRGINIA BUILDING EXPERT
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Ashburn, Virginia Building Expert Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 5,500 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Ashburn's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Building Expert News & Info
    Ashburn, Virginia

    Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders

    April 20, 2011 —

    The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.

    After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”

    “In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”

    Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:

    [1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.

    [a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.

    [b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.

    [2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.

    [3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.

    [4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.

    In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”

    The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”

    The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.

    The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”

    James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:

    “The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.

    In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”

    The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.

    Read the full story...

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

    Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

    June 06, 2018 —
    There are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary. In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    November 05, 2014 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Jim Fullerton. Jim is the President of the law firm of Fullerton & Knowles, P.C., which has attorneys licensed in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, is a Martindale Hubbell Peer Rated Lawyer AV® Preeminent.™ The firm represents owners, lenders, design professionals, suppliers, subcontractors, general contractors and other members of the real estate and construction industries, filing mechanic’s liens, surety bond and other construction claims across all of the states in the Mid Atlantic region. He also represents creditors in bankruptcy issues nationwide, particularly defense of bankruptcy preference claims; advises owners and lenders in real estate lending and acquisition transactions; on all real estate and construction law issues; contract formation and disputes. The firm’s Construction Law Survival Manual is well known and widely used by participants in the construction process. The 550 page manual provides valuable information about construction contract litigation, mechanic’s liens, payment bond claims, bankruptcy and credit management and contains over 30 commonly used contract forms. All of this information and recent construction law issues are constantly updated on the firm’s website. There are two changes to the Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code that became effective September 2014. First, residential properties built by an owner for their own residence will now have a defense of payment to subcontractor mechanic’s liens. This protects homeowners from mechanic’s liens if they have paid their general contractors in full. Second, construction loan open end mortgages will have priority over mechanic’s liens, as long as at least sixty per cent (60%) of the loan proceeds are used for construction costs. This change was pushed by Pennsylvania lenders in response to a recent court case. 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

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    July 22, 2011 —

    On July 13, 2011, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the US District Court issued a rule in the case of Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Univ. Facilities, Inc. (E.D. La., 2011). In this case, Stanley Smith Drywall was contracted by Capstone Building Corporation to “perform undisclosed work at the facility believed to involve the installation of drywall.” The project involved the design and construction of student residences for the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. In May, 2009, University Facilities, Inc. (UFI) sued Capstone Development Corporation and Capstone On-Campus Management.

    State Farm insured Stanley Smith Drywall and they sought a declaration that they have no duty: “(1) to insure Stanley Smith or CBC, or (2) to defend or indemnify any party against UFI's claims in the pending arbitration.” State Farm contends “(1) there is no "occurrence" to trigger coverage under the policy; (2) only breach of contract claims are asserted; (3) there is no property damage alleged; and (4) various coverage limitations and exclusions apply to prevent coverage.’

    The court concluded that “whether State Farm has a duty to defend in the arbitration must be determined by considering the claims asserted in the arbitration.” However, the arbitration claims were not made part of the record. There, “, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law State Farm's duty to defend on the present record.” The same was true of State Farm’s duty to indemnify. “Stanley Smith and CBC assert that State Farm's motion for summary judgment was filed before any discovery was conducted in the arbitration proceeding or in this case. The Court finds that State Farm has failed to develop the record sufficiently to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty to indemnify Stanley Smith or CBC in the arbitration.’

    The court denied State Farm’s motion for a summary judgment on its duty to defend and indemnify.

    Read the court’s decision…

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

    DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

    December 17, 2015 —
    I know. You’re busy. Perhaps even a bit overwhelmed. You’ve got trees to trim, halls to deck with boughs of holly, and when you throw in (the office, your kids’ school, and the bowling league’s) holiday parties, you’re at the point where you’ve got visions of sugar plums (although it may vary) dancing through your head. Well, the DIR has come to give you its own yuletide greeting. Think of it as a Christmas card of sorts. Merry Christmas. The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) announced today that a mandatory renewal deadline is approaching for contractors who bid or work on public works projects in California. Contractors whose public works contractor registration expired June 30, 2015, and have ongoing public works projects or plan to bid on new ones, must pay the $300 renewal fee before January 1, 2016 or face an additional $2,000 late penalty after that date. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

    Louisiana Politicians Struggle on Construction Bills, Hospital Redevelopment

    June 16, 2011 —

    Louisiana politicians are still working on a compromise in the state’s construction budget, as reported in the Times-Picayune. Rob Marrianneax, the chair of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee, removed a $45 million request from Governor Bobby Jindal and added $4 million for projects that Jindal vetoed last year.

    Two senators have formed competing plans to fund redevelopment construction for New Orleans’s Methodist Hospital. Mitch Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans, hoped for $30 million dollars in state bonds. Senator Cynthia Willard-Lewis proposed an amendment that would supply $1.6 million, while Senator J.P. Morrell has an amendment that would supply $4 million.

    Read the full story…

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

    Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

    July 10, 2018 —
    The recent opinion of Whitley v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1503a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), as a follow-up to this article on the property insurance exclusion regarding the “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days,” is a beneficial opinion to insureds. In this case, the insured had a vacation home. A plumbing leak occurred that caused water damage to the home. The plumbing leak occurred during a period of time that lasted approximately 30 days. For this reason, the property insurer denied the claim per the exclusion that the policy does not cover loss caused by repeated leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days from a plumbing system. Summary judgment was granted by the trial court in favor of the insurer based on this exclusion. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

    Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

    June 11, 2014 —
    Very few insurance-related bills survived the 2014 Hawaii Legislative session, with several consumer-friendly bills failing to make it out of committee. Here is a summary of the bills that passed: SB2365: Limits reimbursement of prescription medications in order to prevent drug prices from becoming an unreasonable cost driver of health care in workers' compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims. SB2470: Appropriates general funds to provide for the sustainability of the Hawaii Health Connector, but provides for greater transparency, stakeholder engagement, and legislative involvement in the activities of the Hawaii Health Connector. 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