BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    structural steel construction expert witness Colony Kansas custom homes expert witness Colony Kansas high-rise construction expert witness Colony Kansas mid-rise construction expert witness Colony Kansas custom home expert witness Colony Kansas tract home expert witness Colony Kansas parking structure expert witness Colony Kansas retail construction expert witness Colony Kansas production housing expert witness Colony Kansas low-income housing expert witness Colony Kansas industrial building expert witness Colony Kansas townhome construction expert witness Colony Kansas institutional building expert witness Colony Kansas condominiums expert witness Colony Kansas housing expert witness Colony Kansas landscaping construction expert witness Colony Kansas hospital construction expert witness Colony Kansas Medical building expert witness Colony Kansas multi family housing expert witness Colony Kansas casino resort expert witness Colony Kansas condominium expert witness Colony Kansas Subterranean parking expert witness Colony Kansas
    Colony Kansas consulting general contractorColony Kansas contractor expert witnessColony Kansas building expertColony Kansas slope failure expert witnessColony Kansas expert witness windowsColony Kansas construction expertsColony Kansas construction safety expert
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Colony, Kansas

    Kansas Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: HB 2294 requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim upon the contractor prior to filing a lawsuit. The law places deadlines on the contractor to serve notice on each subcontractor (15 days) and provide a written response to the claimant (30 days). It permits the claimant to file a lawsuit without further notice if the contractor disputes the claim, does not respond to the notice, does not complete work on the defect on a timely basis or does not make a payment in the time allowed.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Colony Kansas

    No state license for general contracting. All businesses must register with the Department of Revenue.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504

    Colony Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460
    Colony Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Colony Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Salina
    Local # 1750
    2125 Crawford Place
    Salina, KS 67401

    Colony Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Lawrence Home Builders Association
    Local # 1723
    PO Box 3490
    Lawrence, KS 66046

    Colony Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Topeka Home Builders Association
    Local # 1765
    1505 SW Fairlawn Rd
    Topeka, KS 66604

    Colony Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Kansas Home Builders Association
    Local # 1700
    212 SW 8th Ave Ste 201
    Topeka, KS 66603

    Colony Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Colony Kansas


    Review the Terms and Conditions of Purchase Orders- They Could be Important!

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    August Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Appreciate at Faster Pace

    NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

    New Jersey Courts Sign "Death Knell" for 1979 Weedo Decision

    Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease

    Consumer Prices Rising as U.S. Housing Stabilizes: Economy

    New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board

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

    Connecting Construction Project Information: Open Technology Databases Improve Project Communication, Collaboration and Visibility

    Five-Year Peak for Available Construction Jobs

    Survey Finds Tough Labor Market Top-of-mind for Busy Georgia Contractors

    Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

    California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Canada Housing Surprises Again With July Starts Increase

    Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

    Construction on the Rise in Washington Town

    Plan Ahead for the Inevitable Murphy’s Law Related Accident

    Another Defect Found on the Bay Bridge: Water Leakage

    Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

    Proposed Legislation for Losses from COVID-19 and Limitations on the Retroactive Impairment of Contracts

    Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

    Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

    ADA Compliance Checklist For Your Business

    Facts about Chinese Drywall in Construction

    Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

    Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

    Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

    Homeowner's Mold Claim Denied Due to Spoilation

    Key California Employment Law Cases: October 2018

    Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

    First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

    San Francisco Bay Bridge Tower Rod Fails Test

    Carroll Brock of Larchmont Homes Dies at Age 88

    Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

    OSHA/VOSH Roundup

    The "Dark Overlord" Strikes The Practice Of Law: What Law Firms Can Do To Protect Themselves

    Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury

    Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease

    I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

    Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

    University of Tennessee’s New Humanities Building Construction Set to Begin

    The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

    Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

    Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

    Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case

    You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract
    Corporate Profile

    COLONY KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Colony, Kansas Construction Expert Witness Group at BHA, leverages from the experience gained through more than 7,000 construction related expert witness designations encompassing a wide spectrum of construction related disputes. Drawing from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Colony's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, as well as a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Colony, Kansas

    Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

    March 02, 2020 —
    California can be an especially expensive place to live. While this is the common wisdom, residents of the state are also painfully aware that location is an equally important factor. Yet, to curb unscrupulous actions in certain areas and expansive rental increases, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB-1482, which is a state-wide limitation on yearly rental increases, prompting potential additions to leases, and additional notices that landlords are required to give to tenants. Failure to do so may cost landlords unnecessary costs and unforeseen complications around the termination of a tenancy. How Does the Rental Cap Work? The law sets forth three ways that rental increases may be limited: (1) a cap of 5% plus the percent change in the cost of living; (2) a cap of 10%; or (3) where local rent or price control that restricts annual increases in the rental rate to an amount less than the state law. The cap that applies is the one that is the most restrictive on the landlord. For example, if the cost of living has gone up by 6%, and there is a local law that restricts rental increases by 15%, then the state law would cap the landlord to a rental increase of 10%. Notably, this doesn't count any discounts or incentives that are applied to the rent, if they are (a) listed separately and (b) clearly stated within the residential lease agreement. Thus, even if the effective increase would be beyond the applicable cap, the landlord is not obligated to cap rent using the discounted rental fees. Finally, this does not prohibit the landlord from freely setting a rent for new tenants. The cap only applies to existing tenants. Exempt Properties from the Law Certain properties are also exempt from the rental cap law, allowing landlords to increase rents without limitation for the residential properties below:
    • Housing restricted by deed for purposes of affordable housing.
    • New housing with a certificate of occupancy that has been granted within the previous 15 years.
    • Condominiums or townhouses provided that the owner is not (a) a real estate investment trust; (b) a corporation, or (c) a limited liability trust.
    • A duplex in which one of the units is owner-occupied as the owner's primary residence.
    'Just Cause' for Terminations Is a Necessity Notably, AB-1482 is not limited to rent restrictions. AB-1482 also restricts the ability of a landlord to evict tenants after the tenant has been occupying the property for over 12 months without just cause. Just cause includes items typical to an ordinary eviction action, such as a failure to pay rent or a default of a material term of the lease, or nuisance actions. Importantly, the legislature provided "no-fault just cause" such as the intent to occupy the real property by the owner or one of their family members, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, compliance with a government agency or an intent to substantially remodel the property. In the event that the just cause is "no-fault," then the owner must either (a) assist the tenant in relocating by providing a direct payment of a full month's rent to the tenant within 15 calendar days of the notice; or (b) waive the payment of the last month's rent. Effectively, this puts a cost on the landlord to terminate a tenancy. Importantly, an owner's failure to do either of those actions will render the termination of tenancy void, and cannot be contractually waived. This does not apply to any of the housing types exempt under the rental cap provision, or (a) transient and tourist hotel occupancy; (b) housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or in an adult residential facility; (c) housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner; (d) single-family owner-occupied residences where the owner leases no more than two units or bedrooms; or (e) student housing for kindergartens or grades 1 to 12. Notwithstanding, landlords must also provide additional language within their lease giving notice of the rental cap law and the tenant's rights regarding termination. This language is stated within the law, and must be given in 12 point font. What Landlords Must Do Right Now Ultimately, landlords will have to show more care towards termination processes and rental increases moving forward. At a bare minimum, landlords will have to revise their form leases for new tenants and prepare addendums for any tenancies continuing in 2020. While the bare minimum is the new, state-mandated language to inform tenants of their rights, other language may be required if the landlord wishes to reserve a right to terminate in order to take occupancy for themselves. Furthermore, for any leases going forward, any landlord that wants to provide a temporary discount or incentive to rent their units will have to include language outlining and specifically stating the presence of the discount or incentive, or chance that a tenant may contest the increase in rent as a violation of the rental cap portion of the law. Similarly, the changes above will have to be implemented as an addendum to any leases being renewed. A failure to do any of these actions risks that a tenant may contest either the termination for being improper or an increase in rent, as an excessive rent hike. Kyle Janecek is an associate on the firm's Transactional team, and has experience with drafting leases for landlords and tenants, real estate purchase and sale agreements, and loans secured by real estate. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb

    March 16, 2020 —
    Some of Australia’s biggest funds are pouring money into U.S. clean-energy projects as they butt up against a shortage of green opportunities at home. AustralianSuper, the country’s largest pension fund, recently joined Queensland Investment Corporation in a $1 billion funding round for Generate, a San Francisco-based green-finance company. And Construction and Building Unions Superannuation, another pension giant, made its first U.S. clean-power investments last year. The investments come as the wildfires that charred an area about the size of New York State have put increasing pressure on funds to do more to fight global warming. The problem, investors say, is the Australian government isn’t promoting clean-energy development, leaving the nation without enough sizable projects to back. “At this point the platforms of scale don’t exist in Australia,” said Nik Kemp, head of infrastructure at AustralianSuper. “The size of the U.S. market makes for a much larger market and much better long-term growth opportunities.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Natalia Kniazhevich & Matthew Burgess, Bloomberg

    BIM Legal Liabilities: Not That Different

    February 10, 2020 —
    For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Scott P. Fitzsimmons. Scott is an attorney with the construction law firm Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, where he represents contractors, subcontractors, owners, and engineers. He is also a LEED AP and an instructor for AGC of D.C., where he teaches BIM Contract Negotiation and Risk Allocation as part of AGC’s Certificate of Management, Building Information Modeling program. When a new technology is introduced to the construction industry, contractors inevitably ask themselves one question “Great, how can this new gadget get me into trouble?” Building Information Modeling (BIM) is exactly the kind of technology that raises this fear. But, BIM has been around for a few years now, and the construction industry has done a good job of curtailing the fear of unanticipated legal liability. Nevertheless, contractors should be aware of the pitfalls BIM introduces and should know how to limit their risk arising from this new “gadget.” Often described as “CAD on Steroids,” BIM is truly much more than a simple design program. Along with early clash detection, BIM provides time and cost integration; calculates energy efficiency; and assists building maintenance long after project completion. Unlike CAD, BIM also modifies the collaborative nature of a construction project. Thus, subcontractors no longer review a design, submit shop drawings, and go to work. Rather, subcontractors are brought into the design process early in the project and often are asked to contribute to the design long before construction begins. Asking a contractor or subcontractor to provide design services appears to shift the roles of an architect and a contractor. So, the questions abound: Is a contractor now responsible for design? Can the contractor be held responsible for defective design? Do not fret. To date, there has been only one advertised case addressing BIM liability. The reason is simple. For almost a hundred years, the United States Supreme Court has held that contractors are not responsible for defective design on a traditional design-bid-build project. Using BIM, therefore, should not modify a contractor’s responsibility. But, to ensure that your obligations do not extend beyond construction, all BIM requirements should be in writing and made part of your contract. 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

    Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty

    June 15, 2020 —
    EIFS, or Exterior Insulation and Finish System, is an integrated exterior insulation and synthetic stucco system, praised for its energy efficiency.[1] However, EIFS has come to be well known in the construction defect world as placing homes at risk due to a lack of a built-in moisture management system. Before long, insurance companies recognized the risk and began explicitly excluding coverage for EIFS-related damage. However, EIFS exclusions have not always been so clearly set forth in some policies, causing insurance coverage litigation. Recently, a Greenwood Village couple, Mark and Susan Mock, lost this fight. Built in 1994, the Mocks’ home was constructed with an EIFS system. The Mocks carried a homeowner’s insurance policy through Allstate, which covered “sudden and accidental loss” to property, but excluded coverage for “planning, construction or maintenance” issues. Such “planning, construction or maintenance” exclusions included “faulty, inadequate or defective designs.” A few months after a hailstorm, the Mocks discovered moisture-related damage to their home’s EIFS system. They reported the damage to Allstate, but Allstate would not cover it, reasoning that the damage to the EIFS system was excluded as a design and/or construction failure, and thus not covered as a “sudden and accidental” loss. The experts who evaluated the damage concluded it was the result of inherent flaws in the EIFS systems common in the 1994 timeframe, which involved long term moisture intrusion behind the cladding and no means for the water to escape. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Volpe may be contacted at volpe@hhmrlaw.com

    Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

    February 03, 2020 —
    In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

    July 20, 2020 —
    The Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America (INVEST in America) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 18, 2020 and is making its way up to Congress. The bill will create millions of jobs and provide substantial investment in the nation’s deteriorating highways, bridges and public transit systems. The bill also endeavors to leave behind a smaller carbon footprint, a major improvement for the nation’s biggest source of carbon pollution. Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of the nation’s infrastructure earns a grade of D+, and there exists an estimated $2 trillion funding gap to bring it into a state of good repair by 2025. While Americans have benefited from a century of infrastructure building, neglect has befallen our once greatest achievements – the roadways and arteries that led to the explosive growth of our nation. In the 1930s, 4.2 percent of the country’s GDP was spent on infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, by 2016 that number fell to 1.5 percent resulting in the substandard conditions that now confront us. Stated more bluntly, our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling and immediate investment in required to bring it up to par. The INVEST in America Act is our “immediate” opportunity to start replacing the outdated systems of the past with smarter, safer, and more resilient infrastructure. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson
    Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com

    It Has Started: Supply-Chain, Warehouse and Retail Workers of Essential Businesses Are Filing Suit

    June 22, 2020 —
    Supply-chain businesses that are appropriately characterized as “essential” have remained open for the delivery of critical supplies while everyone else has been told to close up shop and stay home. Now essential-business employees are contracting COVID-19 and filing suit. Following up on our earlier piece — “Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?” — it is important to recognize that government directives, oftentimes couched as “recommendations,” can come to define what it means to provide a reasonably safe workplace that protects employees from COVID-19. While common law negligence defenses consider the reasonableness of conduct, these directives will likely become the standard. The cases that have been filed are overwhelmingly premised upon the timeless negligence construct. The negligence construct, simply put, imposes a duty to act as a reasonable person would under the circumstances. Nonetheless, while the negligence construct lives in the ordinary world of “reasonableness,” infection-control guidance lives in the rapidly developing world of the science of COVID-19. Guidance on seemingly basic questions, such as the methods of transmission (e.g., personal contact, mucus membrane only, airborne transmission) or even the virus’s shelf life on different surfaces, of particular interest packaging and material handling equipment, can change by the day. All of this provides challenges for the supply-side business looking to protect its workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys James Burger, Robert Devine and Douglas Weck Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Seattle Expands Bridge Bioswale Projects

    May 11, 2020 —
    The success of engineered systems to capture stormwater runoff from Seattle’s Aurora Avenue Bridge has spurred construction of additional measures that proponents say will increase total filtering capacity by another two million gallons per year. Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of