• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia office building building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia casino resort building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia window expert witnessAshburn Virginia architectural expert witnessAshburn Virginia expert witness structural engineerAshburn Virginia engineering consultantAshburn Virginia construction safety expertAshburn Virginia construction project management 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

    Manhattan Home Prices Top Pre-Crisis Record on Luxury Deals

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

    Multifamily Building Pushes New Jersey to Best Year since 2007

    Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

    Kentucky Court Upholds Arbitration Award, Denies Appeal

    Save a Legal Fee: Prevent Costly Lawsuits With Claim Limitation Clauses

    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

    2018 Construction Outlook: Mature Expansion, Deceleration in Some Sectors, Continued Growth in Others

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    The Project “Completion” Paradox in California

    How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

    Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process

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

    Lost Rental Income not a Construction Defect

    Study Finds Mansion Tax Reduced Sales in New York and New Jersey

    Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

    New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

    Construction Feb. Jobs Jump by 61,000, Jobless Rate Up from Jan.

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

    Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case

    Homebuilders Leading U.S. Consumer Stocks: EcoPulse

    Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

    What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

    Cost of Materials Holding Back Housing Industry

    This Is the Most Remote and Magical Hotel on Earth

    Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake

    Hawaii Federal District Court Again Rejects Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

    TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

    Will Millennial’s Desire for Efficient Spaces Kill the McMansion?

    Statutory Time Limits for Construction Defects in Massachusetts

    AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

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

    Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

    Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

    Road to Record $199 Million Award Began With Hunch on Guardrails

    Builder Waits too Long to Dispute Contract in Construction Defect Claim

    ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

    Maine Case Demonstrates High Risk for Buying Home “As Is”

    New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose

    California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims
    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

    Preparing the Next Generation of Skilled Construction Workers: AGC Workforce Development Plan

    November 08, 2017 —
    In August, Associated General Contractors (AGC) and Autodesk released the results of their 2017 Construction Workforce Shortage Survey. Of the more than 1,600 survey respondents, 70 percent said they are having difficulty filling hourly craft positions. Craft worker shortages are the most severe in the West, where 75 percent of contractors are having a hard time filling those positions, followed by the Midwest where 72 percent are having a hard time finding craft workers, 70 percent in the South and 63 percent in the Northeast. Tight labor market conditions are prompting firms to change the way they operate, recruit and compensate workers. Most firms report they are making a special effort to recruit and retain veterans (79 percent); women (70 percent), and African Americans (64 percent). Meanwhile, half of construction firms report increasing base pay rates for craft workers because of the difficulty in filling positions. Twenty percent have improved employee benefits for craft workers and 24 percent report they are providing incentives and bonuses to attract workers. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
    Mr. Cook may be contacted at

    Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

    April 28, 2014 —
    In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    New Window Insulation Introduced to U.S. Market

    February 04, 2014 —
    According to Construction Digital, Nitto has introduced PENJEREX, “a new transparent energy-saving window insulation film to the US Market” that may “satisfy the requirement for enhanced energy efficiency and CO2 reduction in the housing industry.” The film is transparent, while still providing insulation, which helps maintain “the natural look of the home,” reported Construction Digital. The product “is said to improve insulation by reducing heat transfer by 35 percent.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Vegas Hi-Rise Not Earthquake Safe

    July 12, 2011 —

    If an earthquake hit Las Vegas, the Harmon Tower would not withstand it. A report from Weidlinger Associates told MGM Resorts that “in a code-level earthquake, using either the permitted or current code specified loads, it is likely that critical structural members in the tower will fail and become incapable of supporting gravity loads, leading to a partial or complete collapse of the tower.” The inspection came at the request of county officials, according to the article in Forbes.

    According to Ronald Lynn, directory of the building division in the county’s development services division, “these deficiencies, in their current state, make the building uninhabitable.” The county is concerned about risks to adjacent buildings.

    MGM Resorts is currently in litigation, separate from the stability issues, with Perini Corp., the builders of Harmon Tower.

    Read the full story…

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

    Should CGL Insurer have Duty to Defend Insured During Chapter 558 Notice of Construction Defects Process???

    September 01, 2016 —
    Does a CGL insurer have a duty to defend its insured-contractor during Florida Statutes Chapter 558 notice of construction defects pre-suit process? This answer is currently undecided and will be up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide. (It is on appeal stemming from a federal district court saying that an insurer does not have a duty to defend its insured-contractor in the 558 process based on the definition of the word “suit” in the CGL policy.) Why is this an important issue? The 558 pre-suit notice of construction defects process is designed to facilitate an avenue for construction defect lawsuits to get resolved without having to file a lawsuit or, at least, have issues narrowed before a lawsuit needs to be filed. (Check here for a summary of the 558 process.) It requires pre-suit notifications so that implicated parties can become aware of the defects and have an opportunity to inspect the defects / damage, test the defects / damage, and respond to the notice of construction defects; it provides an avenue for beneficial pre-suit discovery. Through participating in the 558 process, the contractor and/or design professional (and those downstream from them) can: (i) offer to remedy the defect, (ii) settle the defect, whether through money or a combination of money and repairs, (iii) dispute the defect, or (iv) advise that available insurance proceeds will be determined by its liability insurer. See Fla. Stat. s. 558.004. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Window Installer's Alleged Faulty Workmanship On Many Projects Constitutes Multiple Occurrences

    May 10, 2017 —
    Lawsuits filed for recovery due to the faulty design and installation of doors and windows by homeowners across the country were found to allege multiple occurrences. Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. 53631 (C.D. Iowa March 31, 2017). The underlying lawsuits alleged that Pella Corporation's windows were defectively designed, manufactured, or installed, and allowed water intrusion to buildings that resulted in third-party property damage or personal injury. Pella sued Liberty Mutual for declaratory judgment and filed a motion for partial summary judgment to determine how many occurrences the underlying cases presented. Pella sought a determination that each of the 15 underlying cases presented one "occurrence" as the term was defined in the CGL policies issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argued that only three or four occurrences were presented, relying on common fact patterns. Pella argued that there were separate and distinct causes of different injuries and damage and thus, each underlying case constituted a separate occurrence. Liberty Mutual, on the other hand, highlighted language within the definition of "occurrence," which stated that an "occurrence" included "continuous or repeated exposure to the same general harmful conditions." The "substantially the same general harmful conditions" language dictated that the scope of "occurrence" be understood to be broad, such that various instances of damage-causing water intrusion in different times and places constituted "substantially the same general harmful conditions." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    June 06, 2018 —
    In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Ms. Moore may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    June 15, 2017 —
    On June 5, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Con. Ass’n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., No. 15SC508, 2017 CO 69 (Colo. June 5, 2017) decision. In short, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the validity of declarant “consent-to-amend” provisions and expressly held that claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act are arbitrable. By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, (“Declarant”) which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control. When it set up the Association, the Declarant included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Meyer may be contacted at