• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia condominiums building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia roofing and waterproofing expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction code expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction project management expert witnessAshburn Virginia concrete expert witnessAshburn Virginia fenestration expert witnessAshburn Virginia architectural expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction defect 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

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case

    Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses

    Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

    In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing

    Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Fifteen White and Williams Lawyers

    Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

    Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

    New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

    Ornate Las Vegas Palace Rented by Michael Jackson for Sale

    Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice

    Quick Note: Notice of Contest of Claim Against Payment Bond

    How Does Your Construction Contract Treat Float

    The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

    Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims

    Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge

    Construction Upturn in Silicon Valley

    Changes to Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Code

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Building Supplier Sued for Late and Defective Building Materials

    Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Alabama Supreme Court States Faulty Workmanship can be an Occurrence

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous

    Times Square Alteration Opened Up a Can of Worms

    Scientists found a way to make Cement Greener

    California Bullet Train Clears Federal Environmental Approval

    Washington Court of Appeals Upholds Standard of Repose in Fruit Warehouse Case

    Understanding the Miller Act

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

    Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?

    World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays

    Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

    In Contracts, One Word Makes All the Difference

    Colorado Construction-Defects Reform Law Attempt Expected in 2015

    Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

    Texas Legislative Update

    A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

    Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

    VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

    What Does It Mean When a House Sells for $50 Million?

    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

    Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

    Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions
    Corporate Profile


    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. Leveraging 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

    Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear

    March 05, 2015 —
    Sydneysiders wanting to sell their homes have never had it easier. The proportion of successful house auctions in Australia's largest city was above 80% at the weekend for the fourth week in a row. That is the longest stretch on record and highlights the potential consequences of a projected interest-rate cut. Governor Glenn Stevens's effort to revive business investment with cheap finance is adding fuel to the country's biggest property market. Home sellers may get a further boost, with 18 of 29 economists forecasting a 25-basis-point cash rate reduction on Tuesday. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael Heath, Bloomberg

    Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

    July 30, 2014 —
    Banks are handing out mortgages of as much as $10 million to the wealthy in record numbers while first-time homebuyers struggle to get loans. Erin Gorman, managing director at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., said she’s fielding more requests for home loans of at least $2 million than ever before. She recently provided a mortgage of more than $6 million for a client’s purchase of a second property in Colorado. “These high-net-worth borrowers do act differently than first-time buyers, who borrow because they have to,” said Gorman, who serves as the national mortgage sales director at Bank of New York Mellon’s wealth management group based in Boston. “High-net-worth borrowers don’t have to borrow. They choose to, so they’re very strategic about what, why, and when they borrow.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg
    Ms. Leondis may be contacted at

    Scary Movie: Theatre Developer Axed By Court of Appeal In Prevailing Wage Determination Challenge

    July 19, 2017 —
    The First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently held that the construction of a movie theater, which was performed in furtherance of a city’s redevelopment agenda, constitutes a “public work” within the meaning of California’s prevailing wage law. Cinema West, LLC v. Christine Baker, No. A144265, (Cal. Ct. App. June 30, 2017). Like many California cities, the City of Hesperia (the “City”) endeavored to revitalize its downtown. In furtherance of this goal, the City acquired vacant property in its downtown with the hope of turning it into a new city hall, a public library, and “complimentary retail, restaurant, and entertainment establishments.” After completing construction of the civic buildings, the City entered into discussions with Cinema West, LLC (“Cinema West”) for the construction of a “state-of-the-art cinema experience.” Under the agreement with the City, Cinema West agreed to purchase the property from the City at fair market value, obtain financing for the construction costs, and build and maintain the movie theater. The City, on the other hand, agreed to provide Cinema West with an interest-bearing loan forgivable over ten years, and to construct an adjacent parking lot “for use by Cinema West... as a parking lot for the movie theater.” The City, moreover, agreed to issue Cinema West a one-time payment as consideration for the operating covenant. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at Mr. Parra may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

    August 19, 2015 —
    In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at

    California Supreme Court Allows Claim Under Unfair Competition Statute To Proceed

    October 16, 2013 —
    The California Supreme Court determined that insurance practices violating the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) could support a claim under the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Zhang v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 353 (2013). Zhang purchased a CGL policy from California Capital Insurance Company. She sued California Capital in a dispute over coverage for fire damage to her commercial property. The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UCL. In her UCL claim, Zhang alleged that California Capital had "engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue, and/or misleading advertising" by promising to provide timely coverage in the event of a compensable loss, when it had no intention of paying the true value of the insureds' covered claims. Zhang specifically alleged unreasonable delays causing deterioration of her property; withholding of policy benefits; refusal to consider cost estimates; misinforming her as to the right to an appraisal; and falsely telling her mortgage holder that she did not intend to repair the property, resulting in foreclosure proceedings. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
    Tred Eyerly can be contacted at

    Be Careful When Requiring Fitness for Duty Examinations

    October 21, 2015 —
    Fitness for Duty examinations can be an important part of an employer’s hiring and retention protocol. The Nebraska Supreme Court recently clarified when an employer may require applicants and employees to undergo fitness for duty examinations. In Arens v. Nebco, Inc., the court ruled that an employer must have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its demand that a current employee submit to a fitness for duty examination. In this case, Lenard Arens suffered two significant injuries over the course of his 25 years of employment with Nebco. The second injury, a closed head injury, limited the type of work he could do and required written instructions due to short term memory loss. Arens was assigned to drive tractor-trailer trucks. Several years after returning to work, Arens had two minor accidents with his truck within a matter of days. Arens supervisor required him to undergo fitness for duty examination. Arens failed the fitness for duty examination and was terminated. Arens filed suit, claiming that Nebco discriminated against him by making him take a fitness for duty test. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
    Mr. Martin may be contacted at

    Personal Guarantor Cannot Escape a Personal Guarantee By…

    June 02, 2016 —
    In a prior article, I discussed the point that a personal guarantor cannot escape a contractual requirement of a personal guarantee merely by executing the guarantee as a corporate officer. The recent decision Frieri v. Capital Investment Services, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1189a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) illustrates this point. In this case, a company hired an individual to help grow that company’s business. The contract required the individual to invest $6 Million into a trust in consideration of the company’s president transferring substantial shares of the company into the trust. The objective was that the trust would own the controlling shares of the company. The money was transferred. However, the shares were never placed in the trust and the trust never received controlling interest in the company. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

    September 14, 2017 —
    In a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8/30/17), that an insurer’s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase “ongoing operations” in an additional insured endorsement, was improper. Additionally, an insurer wishing to limit coverage under an additional insured endorsement to ongoing operations must do so via clear and explicit language. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gary Barrera, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Barrera may be contacted at