• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    tract home building expert Ashburn Virginia multi family housing building expert Ashburn Virginia landscaping construction building expert Ashburn Virginia high-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia Medical building building expert Ashburn Virginia custom homes building expert Ashburn Virginia structural steel construction building expert Ashburn Virginia mid-rise construction building expert Ashburn Virginia parking structure building expert Ashburn Virginia custom home building expert Ashburn Virginia condominiums building expert Ashburn Virginia production housing building expert Ashburn Virginia retail construction building expert Ashburn Virginia industrial building building expert Ashburn Virginia housing building expert Ashburn Virginia institutional building building expert Ashburn Virginia concrete tilt-up building expert Ashburn Virginia condominium building expert Ashburn Virginia low-income housing building expert Ashburn Virginia hospital construction building expert Ashburn Virginia townhome construction building expert Ashburn Virginia Subterranean parking building expert Ashburn Virginia
    Ashburn Virginia multi family design expert witnessAshburn Virginia architectural expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction code expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction defect expert witnessAshburn Virginia stucco expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witnessAshburn Virginia construction claims 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

    Duty to Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Candlebrook Adds Dormitories With $230 Million Purchase

    Earth Movement Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

    It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

    Despite Health Concerns, Judge Reaffirms Sentence for Disbarred Las Vegas Attorney

    California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

    Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

    URGENT: 'Catching Some Hell': Hurricane Michael Slams Into Florida

    Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

    Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

    Federal Court Predicts Coverage In Utah for Damage Caused By Faulty Workmanship

    After Restoring Power in North Carolina, Contractor Faces Many Claims

    UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court

    Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules

    Living With a Millennial. Or Grandma.

    New Becker & Poliakoff Attorney to Expand Morristown Construction Litigation Practice

    Quick Note: Notice of Contest of Claim Against Payment Bond

    Allegations Confirm Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims

    Haight Ranked in 2018 U.S. News - Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms" List

    District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp

    Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

    California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

    Lessons from the Sept. 19 Mexico Earthquake

    Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

    South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

    Congratulations 2016 DE, NJ, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

    Kushner Company Files Suit Against Jersey City Over Delays to Planned Towers

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

    Homeowner’s Policy Excludes Coverage for Loss Caused by Chinese Drywall

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

    Construction Defects and Commercial General Liability in Illinois

    Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

    Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

    GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

    Anti-Assignment Provision Unenforceable in Kentucky

    Newmeyer & Dillion Named for Top-Tier Practice Areas in 2018 U.S. News – Best Law Firms List

    Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages
    Corporate Profile


    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

    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    September 15, 2016 —
    The 2017 Best Lawyers in America list includes twelve White and Williams lawyers. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
      2017 Best Lawyers
    • Frank Bruno, Patent Law
    • Richard Campbell, Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
    • James Coffey, Mergers and Acquisitions Law
    • Timothy Davis, Real Estate Law
    • William Hussey, Tax Law; Trusts and Estates
    • Michael Kraemer, Employment Law - Management; Labor Law - Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment
    • Randy Maniloff, Insurance Law
    • John Orlando, Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
    • Thomas Rogers, Real Estate Law
    • Joan Rosoff, Real Estate Law
    • Craig Stewart, Insurance Law; Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
    • William Taylor, Construction Law
    • Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

      Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims

      November 21, 2017 —
      Originally published by CDJ on August 30, 2017 On August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.” In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Rick Erickson, Snell & Wilmer
      Mr Erickson may be contacted at

      The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation

      March 28, 2012 —

      David M. McLain, writing at Colorado Construction Litigation, has an interesting blog post republishing his article in Common Interests magazine, the monthly periodical of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. In his article, he touches on a number of pitfalls in construction defect litigation, including the potential conflicts of interests facing HOAs. He also considers the problems homeowners can face, including both “strong-arm tactics” taken by attorneys to compel homeowners to join the lawsuit, or situations in which the interests of the HOA do not match those of the homeowners. He writes:

      There is also a conflict of interest with individual owners who attempt to opt out of the case. This can lead to shocking strong-arm tactics on the part of plaintiffs’ attorneys. In one instance, a plaintiffs’ attorney sent a letter to an individual homeowner that stated that as a 1/58th owner of the common elements, if he refused to go along with the suit, and there was ultimately a finding in favor of the HOA which was in any way limited by his refusal to participate, he would be personally liable for 1/58th of the HOA’s total damages. In another instance, a different plaintiffs’ attorney sent a letter to a homeowner who wanted the builder to perform warranty repairs, informing the owner that if he let the builder perform any repairs, the attorney would bill the HOA according to the fee agreement entered by the HOA board (without knowledge or consent of non-board members) and that the HOA would assess the homeowner for that expense. These are just two examples of conflicts which may arise between the HOA board and individual homeowners when the HOA pursues CD cases.

      Another example of a conflict which will arise as a result of CD litigation occurs post-settlement. When an HOA settles for less than 100% of the amount necessary to fund all repairs outlined by its experts, plus attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, there will obviously be a shortfall in the amount necessary to fix the development. The HOA board must then choose to impose a special assessment to cover the shortfall or to make some, but not all, of the repairs outlined by its experts. In choosing the latter, the conflict arises with respect to which homes get fixed and which do not. In this situation, the HOA board has acted as the attorney-in-fact for the individual owners by bringing claims on their behalf, and has compromised those claims without their knowledge or consent.

      Read the full story…

      Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McClain can be contacted at

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

      Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

      September 24, 2013 —
      A Florida couple who sought more than $10 million in damages in a construction defect suit, has received a jury verdict of only $79,000. Leo and Kathryn Vecellio bought the 25,000 square-foot home in 2008, after which they discovered water intrusion issues. They sued both the builder and couple from whom they had bought the house. Although the Vecellios spent more than $11 million to repair their home, the jury concluded that the builder did not know about the construction defects. The jury did determine that the builder, Dan E. Swanson, did either lie about or conceal certain facts about the construction. He was ordered to pay the $79,000 in damages to the Vecellios. Lawyers for the defendants argued that the leaks were not from the original construction of the home, but were instead caused by the renovations made by the Vecellios. The Vecellios are pursuing whether they are entitled to money from home warranties. “There will be more evidence to be considered. I’m determined to see this through,” said Leo Vecellio. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

      September 24, 2014 —
      According to The Denver Post, the Lakewood City Council “introduced an ordinance that would make it more difficult for homeowners associations to sue developers for construction defects and give builders more opportunity to fix problems before litigation begins.” A hearing and final vote is scheduled for October 13th. "If there are defects, we want to get them fixed rather than dragging this through the courts for years," Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy told The Denver Post. Murphy believes the ordinance will bring “more diverse housing options to Lakewood, especially around stations along the Regional Transportation District’s West Rail Line.” Lakewood’s City Planner Travis Parker also declared that the defects law is to blame for the lack of condos in the area. However, some believe that “Lakewood is overstepping its bounds as a home-rule city,” according to The Denver Post. "What they're trying to do is use an ordinance to circumvent state law in order to make it impossible for homeowners to seek redress against builders for defects," Molly Foley-Healy an attorney who serves as legislative liaison for the Community Associations Institute's Legislative Action Committee told the Post. “Mayor Murphy needs to incentivize quality construction in Lakewood instead.” Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of

      Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product

      April 28, 2014 —
      Applying Minnesota law, the federal district court determined the supplier of contaminated dried milk had coverage. The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main Street Ingredients, LLC, 2014 WL 1012793 (8th Cir. March 18, 2014). In 2007, Plainview Milk Products sold dried milk to Main Street Ingredients, LLC, who then sold the dried milk to Malt-O-Meal. The dried milk was used by Malt-O-Meal in its instant oatmeal products. In June 2009, the FDA found Salmonella bacteria at Plainview's plant. The FDA also observed thirteen instances of insanitary conditions in the plant. Plainview issued a product recall notice announcing a "voluntary recall" of dried milk, stating its dried milk had "the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella." Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
      Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at

      Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

      November 03, 2016 —
      It’s official: the October 20, 2016 deadline to petition for certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals on its decision in Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Bradbury has passed, so it appears that decision will stand. In Sierra Pacific, the Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression that the statute of repose for a general contractor to sue a subcontractor begins to run when a subcontractor’s scope of work is substantially complete, regardless of the status of the overall project. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, ¶ 28, ___ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals interpreted the statute of repose in C.R.S. section 13-80-104, which requires that “all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of any improvement to real property” must be brought within six years of substantial completion of that improvement. C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(a). Recognizing that “an improvement may be [to] a discrete component of an entire project” under Shaw Construction, LLC v. United Builder Services, Inc., 296 P.3d 145 (Colo. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals determined that “a subcontractor has substantially completed its role in the improvement at issue when it finishes working on the improvement.” Sierra Pac., 2016 COA at ¶¶ 20, 28. In doing so, it rejected Sierra Pacific’s argument that the statute could be tolled under the repair doctrine “while others worked to repair [the subcontractor’s] ‘improper installation work and flawed repair work.’” Id. at ¶ 29. Because six years had undisputedly passed since the subcontractor completed its scope of work when Sierra Pacific filed suit against it, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment under Section 13-80-104(1)(a). Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
      Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at

      Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space

      November 30, 2016 —
      San Francisco (AP) -- Engineers in San Francisco have tunneled underground to try and understand the sinking of the 58-story Millennium Tower. Now comes an analysis from space. The European Space Agency has released detailed data from satellite imagery that shows the skyscraper in San Francisco's financial district is continuing to sink at a steady rate — and perhaps faster than previously known. The luxury high-rise that opened its doors in 2009 has been dubbed the Leaning Tower of San Francisco. It has sunk about 16 inches into landfill and is tilting several inches to the northwest. A dispute over the building's construction in the seismically active city has spurred numerous lawsuits involving the developer, the city and owners of its multimillion dollar apartments. Engineers have estimated the building is sinking at a rate of about 1-inch per year. The Sentinel-1 twin satellites show almost double that rate based on data collected from April 2015 to September 2016. Read the court decision
      Read the full story...
      Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg