• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    industrial building expert witness Laurel Indiana condominiums expert witness Laurel Indiana production housing expert witness Laurel Indiana retail construction expert witness Laurel Indiana Medical building expert witness Laurel Indiana custom homes expert witness Laurel Indiana institutional building expert witness Laurel Indiana townhome construction expert witness Laurel Indiana hospital construction expert witness Laurel Indiana custom home expert witness Laurel Indiana multi family housing expert witness Laurel Indiana parking structure expert witness Laurel Indiana condominium expert witness Laurel Indiana structural steel construction expert witness Laurel Indiana tract home expert witness Laurel Indiana Subterranean parking expert witness Laurel Indiana housing expert witness Laurel Indiana high-rise construction expert witness Laurel Indiana casino resort expert witness Laurel Indiana office building expert witness Laurel Indiana low-income housing expert witness Laurel Indiana concrete tilt-up expert witness Laurel Indiana
    Laurel Indiana consulting general contractorLaurel Indiana reconstruction expert witnessLaurel Indiana architectural expert witnessLaurel Indiana expert witnesses fenestrationLaurel Indiana forensic architectLaurel Indiana eifs expert witnessLaurel Indiana construction scheduling and change order evaluation expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Laurel, 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 Laurel 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 Gtr Terre Haute
    Local # 1582
    2747 Sidenbender Rd
    Terre Haute, IN 47802

    Laurel Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Southeastern Indiana chapter
    Local # 1536
    394 W County Road 400 N
    Greensburg, IN 47240
    Laurel Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Madison County Chapter
    Local # 1504
    853 E. Southern Avenue
    Indianapolis, IN 46203
    Laurel Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Jackson-Jennings Builders Association
    Local # 1574
    11990 W Mt Healthy Rd
    Columbus, IN 47201

    Laurel Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis
    Local # 1544
    PO Box 44670
    Indianapolis, IN 46244

    Laurel Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Indiana Builders Association
    Local # 1500
    101 W Ohio St Ste 1111
    Indianapolis, IN 46204

    Laurel Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Wayne County Builders Association
    Local # 1570
    PO Box 1591
    Richmond, IN 47375

    Laurel Indiana Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Laurel Indiana

    Defend Trade Secret Act of 2016–-Federalizing Trade Secret Law

    Bel Air Mansion Construction Draws Community Backlash

    Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018

    Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

    Liebherr Claims Crane Not Cause of Brazil Stadium Construction Accident

    What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Float-In of MassDOT Span Sails, But Delay Dispute Lingers

    Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

    Tokyo's Skyline Set to See 45 New Skyscrapers by 2020 Olympics

    How Mushrooms Can Be Used To Make Particle Board Less Toxic

    Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

    Resurgent Housing Seen Cushioning U.S. From World Woes: Economy

    Genuine Dispute Over Cause of Damage and Insureds’ Demolition Before Inspection Negate Bad Faith and Elder Abuse Claims

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Is Construction Defect Notice under Florida Repair Statute a Suit?

    New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes

    Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space

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

    Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

    Library to Open with Roof Defect Lawsuit Pending

    U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

    Delay Leads to Problems with Construction Defects

    Hamptons Home Up for Foreclosure That May Set Record

    Companies Move to Houston Area and Spur Home Building

    Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

    Undercover Sting Nabs Eleven Illegal Contractors in California

    New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

    Economist Predicts Housing Starts to Rise in 2014

    Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

    California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

    No Occurrence Where Contract Provides for Delays

    Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation

    Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

    Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

    The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute

    Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court

    A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

    Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia

    CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update

    California Imposes New Disabled Access Obligations on Commercial Property Owners

    Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?

    Providing Notice of Claims Under Your Construction Contract

    Cincinnati Goes Green

    Manhattan to Add Most Office Space Since ’90 Over 3 Years

    Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

    Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous
    Corporate Profile


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

    Insurance Alert: Insurer Delay Extends Time to Repair or Replace Damaged Property

    November 26, 2014 —
    In Stephens & Stephens XII v. Fireman's Fund Ins. (No. A135938, filed November 24, 2014), the plaintiffs obtained property insurance on a warehouse. Within a month, it was discovered to be stripped of all wiring and metal. Fireman's Fund paid for emergency repairs but nothing more, concerned that the damage had occurred outside the policy period. The policy provided for valuation of either "replacement cost," meaning the expenditure required to replace the damaged property with "new property of comparable material and quality," or "actual cash value," defined as the actual, depreciated value of the damaged property. For replacement cost, Fireman’s Fund was not required to pay "until the lost or damaged property is actually repaired ... as soon as reasonably possible after the loss or damage," and only "[t]he amount [the insured] actually spend[s]...." In the subsequent bad faith lawsuit, the jury awarded the full cost of repair, despite there being no repairs. The appeals court reversed, holding that there was no right to an immediate award for the costs of repairing the damage; however, the court nonetheless held that the insured was entitled to a "conditional judgment," awarding those costs if repairs were actually made. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

    June 17, 2015 —
    Plans for a skyscraper at 22 Bishopsgate in the City of London go on show for the first time today before developers Axa Real Estate and Lipton Rogers seek planning approval. Axa bought the site in February, three years after work halted on the tower during the financial crisis. The plot became known as “the stump” because only the foundations, basements and the lift core up to level nine were built. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Gower, Bloomberg

    Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Class Action Status, Reducing Homes from 1000 to 71

    July 02, 2014 —
    The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the “Nevada Supreme Court has rejected a request for class action status for claims of damaged stucco from faulty construction by Del Webb Communities involving nearly 1,000 Sun City Summerlin residents,” however, “the court upheld the award of damages to 71 homeowners following a jury trial in Clark County District Court in 2008.” The case began in 2003, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal referred to it as “one of the largest construction-defect cases in Nevada history.” But District Judge Allan Earl denied class action lawsuit in 2006. “Attorneys were seeking $70 million for the homeowners.” In 2008, another court “determined that only 71 homeowners merited compensation totaling $4 million for the stucco issues.” According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “[h]omeowners alleged that Del Webb failed to install metal screeds that would protect homes from water damage, and as a result, the homes suffered from cracked stucco, mold and weakened walls.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    October 01, 2014 —
    To start our week off right, today we have another important article from guest blogger Christopher G. Hill, LEED AP. Chris is a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, construction lawyer and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. He authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals. His practice concentrates on mechanic’s liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals. [His blog was also one of the first construction law blogs I found and followed, even if he is a Duke alum!] Take it away, Chris! First and foremost, thanks to Melissa for inviting me back to post here at her great blog. She continues to invite me back despite my being a Blue Devil (and I try not to hold her Tar Heel status against her). So much of discussion relating to construction law and construction lawyers centers on the litigation of disputes. This discussion comes in many forms from avoidance of such litigation through the early intervention of good counsel prior to getting into a project to what sort of resolution mechanism to use. Another branch of this discussion is essentially the right way to pursue your claim (or as some may read it start the dispute ball rolling). Sometimes a payment bond claim is the best method while others a straight up contractual suit is the best way to go. Of course, all of this discussion presumes that there will be disputes. While I agree to some degree that in the Murphy’s Law riddled world of commercial construction, problems will arise. These problems need not rise to the level of a dispute that requires outside (read court or arbitrator) intervention. A few tips that are easy to write, but admittedly hard to practice at times can hopefully keep problems from blossoming into disputes. I’ve listed three big ones here: 1.Use “in house counsel.” Yes, I know that most of you engineers, architects, commercial general contractors and subcontractors out there aren’t big enough to either want or need a full time attorney on the payroll. What I mean by this is that when problems occur (or preferably before doing so), give your friendly local construction lawyer a call. As I learned from my dad, an ounce of prevention and all that. That 10 minute phone call may help avoid many hours of time and bills from your attorney later down the road. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
    Ms. Brumback may be contacted at

    California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

    November 21, 2017 —
    Originally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017 Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    October 21, 2015 —
    Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is proud to be partnering with the State Bar of Texas, Construction Law Section, as a sponsor and exhibitor at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law to be held November 12 & 13, 2015 at The Westin Austin at The Domain. With offices in San Antonio and Houston, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 5,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and subcontractors. BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA also specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability and delay claim analysis. As the dynamic litigation climate in Texas continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction-related cases continues to rise and become more sophisticated, it is more important than ever for contractors and builders to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed. Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, in Texas and across the Western United States. Register for the Basic Course... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

    June 17, 2015 —
    The Los Angeles Times reported that in a unanimous decision, the California Supreme court justices declared that “cities and counties” can “require developers to sell some housing at below-market rates.” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote, “It will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with California’s current housing market that the significant problems arising from a scarcity of affordable housing have not been solved over the past three decades,” as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti applauded the decision: “This gives Los Angeles and other local governments another possible tool to use as we tackle our affordable housing crisis.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    February 25, 2014 —
    In the Daily Journal of Commerce, Scott A. Smith and James H. Wendell discussed the recent Washington Supreme Court decision in Donatelli v D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers. The court’s ruling casts “doubt on a company's ability to limit its liability for economic losses arising out of a contract dispute.” The Donatellis hired D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers to develop vacant land in King County, however, the “project did not go according to plan and the real estate market collapsed before the project was completed,” according to the Daily Journal of Commerce. The “Donatellis lost their property through foreclosure” and then “sued the engineering firm for more than $1.5 million in lost profits.” D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers asked for the negligence claims to be dismissed “because the parties' contract contained a provision limiting the engineering firm's liability to the amount of its fee for ‘any injury or loss on account of any error, omission, or other professional negligence.’” However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that “the case could proceed in the trial court on a theory that the engineers could be liable if they made negligent misrepresentations that induced the Donatellis to enter into the contract in the first place.” Smith and Wendell stated that because of “this decision, engineering, architectural, construction, and other professional service companies may now face damage claims they thought they were contractually protected against.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of