• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing expert witness Holland Indiana tract home expert witness Holland Indiana hospital construction expert witness Holland Indiana structural steel construction expert witness Holland Indiana retail construction expert witness Holland Indiana multi family housing expert witness Holland Indiana low-income housing expert witness Holland Indiana Subterranean parking expert witness Holland Indiana parking structure expert witness Holland Indiana production housing expert witness Holland Indiana custom home expert witness Holland Indiana landscaping construction expert witness Holland Indiana casino resort expert witness Holland Indiana office building expert witness Holland Indiana mid-rise construction expert witness Holland Indiana Medical building expert witness Holland Indiana condominiums expert witness Holland Indiana condominium expert witness Holland Indiana industrial building expert witness Holland Indiana institutional building expert witness Holland Indiana concrete tilt-up expert witness Holland Indiana custom homes expert witness Holland Indiana
    Holland Indiana construction claims expert witnessHolland Indiana construction safety expertHolland Indiana construction project management expert witnessHolland Indiana forensic architectHolland Indiana defective construction expertHolland Indiana consulting engineersHolland Indiana construction claims expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Holland, Indiana

    Indiana Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: According to SB45160, §IC 32-27-3-1&2 a claimant must provide written notice 60 days before filing an action. Within 21 days after service of the notice, the construction professional must serve a written response. Claimant must file list of known construction defects, description, and the construction professional responsible for each alleged defect (to the extent known).

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Holland Indiana

    License required for plumbing. All other licensing is done at the local county level.

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Southern Indiana
    Local # 1566
    1601 Greentree Court
    Clarksville, IN 47129

    Holland Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Gibson Co Chapter
    Local # 1530
    PO Box 386
    Princeton, IN 47670
    Holland Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Dubois County
    Local # 1511
    1813 S A St
    Jasper, IN 47546

    Holland Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Southwestern Indiana Builders
    Local # 1524
    2175 N Cullen Avenue
    Evansville, IN 47715

    Holland Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Vincennes Area Chapter
    Local # 1563
    PO Box 531
    Vincennes, IN 47591
    Holland Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    River Valley Chapter of National Associated Home Builders
    Local # 1576
    PO Box 365
    Hanover, IN 47243
    Holland Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lawrence County Chapter
    Local # 1535
    201 Main Street c/o Hoosier Door
    Oolitic, IN 47451
    Holland Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Holland Indiana

    Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

    Firm Announces Remediation of Defective Drywall

    The Future for Tall Buildings Could Be Greener

    Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

    Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners

    New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?

    Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails

    Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

    Insurance Firm Defends against $22 Million Claim

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

    Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted

    General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

    William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

    Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually

    N.J. Voters Approve $116 Million in School Construction

    Homeowners Not Compelled to Arbitration in Construction Defect Lawsuit

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld

    Domtar Update

    Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

    Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

    Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

    Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

    Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

    Guilty Pleas Draw Renewed Interest In Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws

    National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    City of Sacramento Approves Kings NBA Financing Plan

    Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit

    Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

    How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

    Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply

    Can We Compel Insurers To Cover Construction Defect in General Liability Policies?

    The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

    Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

    Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

    President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

    The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

    Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

    How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive

    A Downside of Associational Standing - HOA's Claims Against Subcontractors Barred by Statute of Limitations

    New Jersey Court Adopts Continuous Trigger for Construction Defect Claims

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 5500 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Holland, Indiana Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Holland'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.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Holland, Indiana

    Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?

    January 24, 2018 —
    The ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied? The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply. Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act. The McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act? To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings. First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.) In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (Id.) Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the McMillin opinion. This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896) and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action? To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded, we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day. All we know for sure from McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of McMillin v. Superior Court. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes

    5 Impressive Construction Projects in North Carolina

    February 04, 2014 —
    What are your top construction building projects in North Carolina? Do you have a “short list”? Author Ralitsa Golemanova of JW Surety Bonds does, and she has the reasoning behind them. Ralista’s Top 5, which all “present a different facet of exceptional modern design and construction” are presented below. For her full commentary and some great pictures of the projects, check out her full article. Her list, in no particular order, includes: 1. The North Carolina Museum of Art’s West Building Expansion The 127,000 square-feet West Building Expansion of the North Carolina Museum of Arts won the 2011 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Honor Award for Architecture. The Building is largely made of aluminum panels. One of its specificities is that it does not have any windows. Instead, visibility is ensured through 360 skylights that allow delicate natural light to enter the inner galleries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback can be contacted at

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    December 15, 2016 —
    A development site slated for an almost 1,000-foot condo tower on Manhattan’s far east side found a new owner through a bankruptcy auction Tuesday, removing a hurdle for construction after about a year of delays. Gamma Real Estate, the lender to the project, won the auction with a credit bid of $86 million and is poised to take control of the site, pending approval from the bankruptcy court, said David Schechtman, a broker with Meridian Investment Sales, which handled the auction with another brokerage. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
    Mr. Carmiel can be followed on Twitter @OshratCarmiel

    Colorado Court of Appeals Decides the Triple Crown Case

    January 17, 2014 —
    In an earlier blog post, I discussed the case of Triple Crown Observatory Village Assn., Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc., et al (2013 WL 5761028) because it presented the rare case where the Colorado Court of Appeals accepted an interlocutory appeal. Notably, the interlocutory appeal resulted from dismissal of the HOA case in which the trial judge directed the parties to arbitrate in lieu of a jury trial, under the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions that governed the community. The Court of Appeals decided the case on its merits on November 7, 2013, and its decision can be found at 2013 WL 6502659. (Note: this presently unpublished opinion may be subject to further appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.) The case resulted from an attempt by the HOA’s counsel to amend the mandatory arbitration provisions of the declarations before it filed suit. This amendment process took the form of soliciting signature votes of homeowners on a revocation resolution to repeal the specific provisions of the declarations that provided mandatory, binding arbitration as the sole remedy for disputes between the HOA and the developer and/or general contractor. The declarations required that 67% of homeowners vote in favor of amendment in order to modify the declarations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Berkeley W. Mann, Jr., Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Mann may be reached at

    Inside New York’s Newest Architectural Masterpiece for the Mega-Rich

    May 20, 2015 —
    The newest condominium tower in midtown Manhattan's billionaires district is ready to open its doors to buyers. It took almost a decade to get there. The skyscraper at 53 W. 53rd St., designed by French architect Jean Nouvel and rising next to the Museum of Modern Art, will start marketing its 139 apartments next week, with prices starting at $3 million. Planned since 2006, the project endured the real estate bust and a global financial crisis that decimated demand for luxury homes. Now it's emerging when buyers can't seem to get enough of them. "We're very eager to begin,'' said David Penick, the New York-based managing director for developer Hines, which is building the project with Goldman Sachs Group and Singapore-based Pontiac Land Group. "We're confident in what we have to sell in the market we're in, and we'll see how it goes.'' Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    August 26, 2015 —
    According to the Los Angeles Times, “A team of nuclear waste experts has found hundreds of serious defects at an Energy Department plant designed to turn millions of gallons of highly radioactive sludge into more stable solid glass at the former weapons facility in Hanford, Wash.” The report from 2014 was leaked, and stated that the “partially built facility is riddled with 362 ‘significant design vulnerabilities’ that could affect safety and future operations.” Thirty-seven experts led by two senior managers created the report. The Los Angeles Times reported that the report findings “are significant because the plant is part of the Energy Department’s 2013 initiative to fix earlier problems that stalled construction of other parts of the treatment system at Hanford, the site of the nation’s worst radioactive contamination.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    July 23, 2014 —
    Smithsonian Magazine reported on a new U.S. trend of blending farms and housing developments: The concept is called Development Supported Agriculture (DSA), or more commonly known as “Agrihoods.” In a DSA, “consumers pledge money or resources to support a farm operation, and in turn, receive a share of what it produces, but take the concept one step further by integrating the farm within residential developments.” Residents receive similar perks of being a part of a home owner association such as supported pools, tennis courts, and playgrounds through their contribution to the farm. The first DSA, Prairie Crossing, was built in Grayslake, Illinois to preserve land while adding about 350 residential homes. Willowsford, a new DSA being built in Ashburn Virginia, will have over 2,000 homes. Willowsford’s developers have preserved 2,000 acres, with 300 acres of farmland. The development will be broken into four villages, and each will have its own farm. Part of the popularity of DSAs is that they may “require less of an investment than other green space communities—for instance, communities planned around golf courses,” according to Smithsonian Magazine. “What does it cost to leave the open space alone in the first place? Almost nothing,” said Ed McMahon, the Charles E. Fraser chair on sustainable development and environmental policy at the Urban Land Institute, as quoted by Smithsonian Magazine. “A light bulb went off in the mind of savvy developers who said, ‘Jeez, I can build a golf course development without the golf course.’ So that led to designing communities around other green-space amenities such as a farm.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

    September 07, 2017 —
    In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (No. D070478; filed 8/30/17), a California appeals court found that manuscript additional insured endorsements on construction subcontractors’ policies were ambiguous regarding additional insured coverage for the developer, and that substantial evidence supported a finding that the insurer’s refusal to defend the developer was in bad faith. The court also approved awarding punitive damages on a one-to-one basis with the general damages. But the appeals court remanded the case for a further determination on the amount of Brandt fees, based on the developer’s change from a contingency to an hourly agreement. The Pulte case arose from the development of two residential housing projects beginning in 2003 and sold in 2005-2006. Subcontractors were required to name Pulte as additional insured on their policies, some of them issued by American Safety. In 2013, homeowners sued Pulte based in part on the work of subcontractors insured by American Safety, which then denied coverage to Pulte because the construction had taken place years earlier. 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