BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    townhome construction expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois office building expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois institutional building expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois housing expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois industrial building expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois production housing expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois casino resort expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois condominiums expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois condominium expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois retail construction expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois tract home expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois low-income housing expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois hospital construction expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois custom homes expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois Medical building expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois multi family housing expert witness Bolingbrook Illinois
    Bolingbrook Illinois slope failure expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois engineering consultantBolingbrook Illinois construction code expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois construction scheduling expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois construction claims expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois construction defect expert witnessBolingbrook Illinois defective construction expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Bolingbrook, Illinois

    Illinois Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB4873 Pending: The Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act provides that a construction professional shall be liable to a homeowner for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the professional and his or her agents, employees, or subcontractors. This bill requires the service of notice to the professional of the complained-of defect in the construction by the homeowner prior to commencement of a lawsuit. Allows the professional to make an offer of repair or settlement and to rescind this offer if the claimant fails to respond within 30 days.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Bolingbrook Illinois

    No state license required for general contracting. License required for roofing.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504

    Bolingbrook Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467

    Bolingbrook Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174

    Bolingbrook Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago
    Local # 1425
    5999 S. New Wilke Rd Ste 104
    Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

    Bolingbrook Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of the Greater Rockford Area
    Local # 1465
    631 N Longwood St Suite 102
    Rockford, IL 61107

    Bolingbrook Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kankakee
    Local # 1445
    221 S Schuyler Ave Ste B
    Kankakee, IL 60901

    Bolingbrook Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria
    Local # 1455
    1599 N Main Street
    East Peoria, IL 61611

    Bolingbrook Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Bolingbrook Illinois


    Agrihoods: The Best of Both Worlds

    Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

    Pennsylvania Reconstruction Project Beset by Problems

    Demanding a Reduction in Retainage

    Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

    California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

    After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

    Kushner Cos. Probed Over Harassment of Low-Income Tenants

    Oregon Courthouse Reopening after Four Years Repairing Defects

    Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

    BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

    CSLB “Fast Facts” for Online Home Improvement Marketplaces

    Report: Construction Firms Could Better Protect Workers From Noise Hazards

    New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

    South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

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

    2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

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

    Senior Housing Surplus Seen as Boomers Spur Building Boom

    Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

    Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

    Construction Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

    Georgia Supreme Court Says Construction Defects Can Be an “Occurrence”

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit

    Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

    Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?

    West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar Returns to Anaheim May 15th & 16th

    Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

    Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements

    El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

    Forensic Team Finds Fault with Concrete Slabs in Oroville Dam Failure

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

    Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

    Mandatory Attorneys’ Fee Award for Actions Brought Under the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act

    Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

    Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust
    Corporate Profile

    BOLINGBROOK ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Bolingbrook, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Bolingbrook'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
    Bolingbrook, Illinois

    New California Construction Law for 2019

    January 02, 2019 —
    The California Legislature introduced over 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2019, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. McLennon, Smith Currie
    Mr. McLennon may be contacted at dfmclennon@smithcurrie.com

    Don’t Just Document- Document Right!

    February 06, 2019 —
    I have stated to clients on many occasions that paper is a lawyer’s best friend. Because of a recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court, I should modify that to the correct paper is a lawyer’s best friend. In Commonwealth v. AMEC Civil, LLC, AMEC sued the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) seeking more than $21 million in damages. The Mecklenburg County Circuit Court granted AMEC almost all of its damages and found that AMEC’s notice of intent to make a claim was proper under the Virginia Code even if it was not in the proper form. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

    February 06, 2019 —
    In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits

    February 27, 2019 —
    Reversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019). While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

    February 11, 2019 —
    These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:
    The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

    California Appeals Court Says Loss of Use Is “Property Damage” Under Liability Policy, and Damages Can be Measured by Diminished Value

    December 11, 2018 —
    In a win for policyholders, a California appellate court has held that the loss of use of property resulting from alleged negligence constitutes property damage under a liability insurance policy. In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the property owner, Thee Sombrero, operated a venue as a nightclub. After a shooting inside the nightclub caused a patron’s death, the local government revoked Sombrero’s right to use the property as a nightclub and, instead, limited permissible use of the property to a banquet hall. Sombrero sued the security company it had hired to keep guns out of the club, alleging that it was the security company’s negligence that caused the city to revoke Sombrero’s nightclub use permit and that the loss of use of the facility as a nightclub resulted in damages of almost a million dollars based on an assessment of the property’s diminished market value. The security company did not contest the claim, and Sombrero obtained a default judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David M. Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions

    November 21, 2018 —
    In a good, recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Americabe-Moriarity, JV, 2018 WL 5306683 (11th Cir. 2018), held that Florida Statute s. 57.105(7) cannot be used to shift attorney’s fees in a contractual indemnification clause in a dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor’s performance bond surety, when the dispute does not involve an actual indemnification claim stemming from a third-party. In this case, a prime contractor terminated a subcontractor and looked to the subcontractor’s performance bond surety to pay for the completion work. The subcontractor had a standard AIA A312 performance bond that requires the prime contractor to comply with the terms of the bond, as well as the incorporated subcontract, in order to trigger the surety’s obligations under the bond. The surety filed an action for declaratory relief against the prime contractor arguing that the prime contractor breached the terms of the performance bond through non-compliance thereby discharging the surety’s obligations. The trial court agreed and the surety moved for attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Bond Principal Necessary on a Mechanic’s Lien Claim

    October 23, 2018 —
    As anyone that reads this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens are a big part of the Virginia landscape for a construction attorney like me. One option for dealing with a mechanic’s lien here in Virginia that we have not discussed but so often is the ability to “bond off” a lien. In short, the Virginia statute allows a party to essentially substitute a bond valued at a court set multiple of the principal amount of the mechanic’s lien for the memorandum. In exchange, the lien is released of record. Any enforcement action can still proceed with security for the claimant and the property owner feeling better about things because there will be no lien on the title to the land. In many ways this process provides an easier path to resolution for both owner and claimant. First of all, the claimant does not have to deal with a bank or other interest holders in the property (though a recent case discussed below reminds us that certain other parties are necessary). Second of all, the owner does not have the cloud on the title of a mechanic’s lien that may have been filed by a subcontractor over which he has no control. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com