BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Flossmoor Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois hospital construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom homes expert witness Flossmoor Illinois condominium expert witness Flossmoor Illinois industrial building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois Medical building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois parking structure expert witness Flossmoor Illinois low-income housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois production housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Flossmoor Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois townhome construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois multi family housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois office building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois tract home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois casino resort expert witness Flossmoor Illinois institutional building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois retail construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois
    Flossmoor Illinois building code compliance expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois engineering consultantFlossmoor Illinois civil engineer expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois expert witnesses fenestrationFlossmoor Illinois construction expert testimonyFlossmoor Illinois expert witness structural engineerFlossmoor Illinois soil failure expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Flossmoor, 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 Flossmoor Illinois

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    SouthWest Suburban Home Builders Association
    Local # 1432
    10767 W 163rd Pl
    Orland Park, IL 60467

    Flossmoor Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504

    Flossmoor Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Flossmoor Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Flossmoor 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

    Flossmoor 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

    Flossmoor Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Flossmoor Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Flossmoor Illinois


    Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013

    Implied Warranties for Infrastructure in Florida Construction Defect Claims

    Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

    Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud

    Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

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

    Unfinished Building Projects Litter Miami

    Latosha Ellis Joins The National Black Lawyers Top 40 Under 40

    Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

    Law Firm Settles Two Construction Defect Suits for a Combined $4.7 Million

    Subcontractor Allowed to Sue Designer for Negligence: California Courts Chip Away at the Economic Loss Doctrine (Independent Duty Rule)

    Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

    Contractors with Ties to Trustees Reaped Benefits from LA Community College Modernization Program

    New York Converting Unlikely Buildings into Condominiums

    Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

    Floating Crane on Job in NYC's East River Has a Storied Past of Cold War Intrigue

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Solicitor General’s Views to Supreme Court on Two Circuit Court Rulings that Groundwater Can be Considered “Waters of the United States”

    Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

    Jury Awards Aluminum Company 35 Million in Time Element Losses

    School for Building Trades Helps Fill Need for Skilled Workers

    ‘I’m a Scapegoat,’ Says Former CEO of Dubai Construction Firm

    17 Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Ranked In The 2019 Legal Elite Edition Of Nevada Business Magazine

    Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

    Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value

    Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

    Thank Your Founding Fathers for Mechanic’s Liens

    NY Attorney General to Propose Bill Requiring Climate Adaptation for Utilities

    Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

    Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

    Did Deutsche Make a Deal with the Wrong Homeowner?

    NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger

    Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure

    Construction Needs Collaborative Planning

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder

    CGL Policy Covering Attorney’s Fees in Property Damage Claims

    Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

    London Office Builders Aren’t Scared of Brexit Anymore

    24/7 Wall Street Reported on Eight Housing Markets at All-Time Highs

    Four Companies Sued in Pool Electrocution Case

    Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts

    Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

    Hawaii Court Looks at Changes to Construction Defect Coverage after Changes in Law

    Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

    The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

    No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit

    West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar Announced for 2014

    Are You Taking Full Advantage of Available Reimbursements for Assisting Injured Workers?

    California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force Continues to Set Fire to the Underground Economy

    DE Confirms Robust D&O Protection Despite Company Demise
    Corporate Profile

    FLOSSMOOR ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Flossmoor, Illinois 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. Leveraging from this considerable body of experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to Flossmoor'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
    Flossmoor, Illinois

    Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

    December 02, 2019 —
    In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

    Nebraska Court Ruling Backs Latest Keystone XL Pipeline Route

    September 30, 2019 —
    Advocates of the Keystone XL oil pipeline have won a victory in their long effort to construct the project, as the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a state commission's 2017 finding that supported the project's latest route alignment through the state. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
    Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

    NLRB Hits Unions with One-Two Punch the Week Before Labor Day

    November 18, 2019 —
    The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) continues to modify the way employers, unions and employees view and relate to each other in the workplace. In two decisions right before Labor Day, the Board strengthened employer rights in their workplaces, while at the same time making life for their union counterparts more difficult. On August 23, 2019, the Board revisited the issue of whether an employer must grant access to the off-duty employees of an onsite contractor so they can engage in Section 7 activities on the employer’s property. In general, Section 7 activities consist of employees acting together to improve their pay and working conditions, which constitute fundamental rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). In Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation d/b/a Tobin Center, the San Antonio-based performing arts center, the Tobin Center, owned the Center as well as grounds that abutted the famed San Antonio River Walk. The Tobin Center housed three resident companies, one of which was the Ballet San Antonio with whom it had a licensor-licensee agreement. In addition to plays, movies and other productions, the Tobin Center hosted the San Antonio Symphony (the Symphony) to perform for 22 weeks of the year. The Ballet San Antonio also occasionally utilized the Symphony for live musical performances at its ballets. When, however, the Ballet San Antonio decided to use recorded music for a particular production, off-duty employees of the Symphony protested by leafletting the public on the Tobin Center property. The leaflets advised the public of this decision and urged that they “DEMAND LIVE MUSIC!” Their protests were not directed at the property owner, who denied them access to its property. Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP and Robert Pettigrew, White and Williams LLP Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Pettigrew may be contacted at pettigrewr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

    December 22, 2019 —
    Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

    Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

    November 24, 2019 —
    I am truly grateful that my buddy Craig Martin (@craigmartin_jd) continues his great posts over at The Construction Contractor Advisor blog. He is always a good cure for writer’s block and once again this week he gave me some inspiration. In his most recent post, Craig discusses a recent Indiana case relating to the ever present issue of termination by a subcontractor for non-payment. In the Indiana case, the court looked at the payment terms and determined that the subcontractor was justified in walking from the project when it was not paid after 60 days per the contract. This result was the correct, if surprising. Why do I say surprising? Because I am always reluctant to recommend that a subcontractor walk from a job for non payment if it is possible to continue. This is not so much for legal reasons (not paying a sub is a clear breach of contract by a general contractor) but practical ones. The practical effect of walking from the job is that the subcontractor is put on the defensive. Instead of arguing later that it performed but was not paid, that subcontractor is put in the position of arguing that the general contractor cannot collect its completion related and other damages because it breached first. This is a more intuitively difficult argument and one that is not as strong as the first. Of course, all of this is contingent on the language in your contract (is there a “pay if paid” or language like that in the Indiana case?). 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

    Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

    September 04, 2019 —
    Senator Bill Dodd, who represents Napa County and surrounding areas in the California Senate, has recently introduced Senate Bill 240, known colloquially as The Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019. S.B. 240 would amend the California Insurance Code to streamline and organize claim processing, particularly during a state of emergency / catastrophic events. The proposal is in response to a series of devastating wildfires which ravaged the Sonoma County and Napa Valley wine country during the 2017 fire season (Atlas, Tubbs, and Nun fires). Many of Senator Dodd’s constituents reported difficulty in navigating the claim process due to multiple claim professionals handling a single claim, many of whom were outside of California, and many of whose capabilities were challenged. S.B. 240 would direct the Department of Insurance to issue annual notices setting forth legal developments as they relate to property insurance policies, including best practices for evaluating damage caused by an emergency, and requires out-of-state claims professionals to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have read these notices along with claim adjusting literature also prepared by the Department of Insurance. S.B. 240 would also require insurers to designate a primary point of contact for their customers during a state of emergency until the claim is closed or litigation is initiated. While the proposed legislation would not prohibit multiple claims professionals handling a single claim, it would provide for training standards issued by the Department of Insurance on how best to handle claims in a state of emergency. Further, S.B. 240 would require claims professionals who are not licensed in California (1) to be supervised by a licensed California claims professional, and (2) to read and understand the annual emergency claim adjusting literature issued by the Department of Insurance within 15 calendar days of beginning adjusting of claims in California. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous vote and is pending in the Assembly. The bill is also supported by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Accordingly, the bill is expected to pass the Legislature. Once enacted, S.B. 240 would significantly elevate claim adjusting requirements related to emergencies, such as natural disasters, by placing greater oversight in the Department of Insurance, and greater responsibility on claims professional within and outside of California. How pragmatic these requirements are and what practical impact they will have on the industry are developments which we will follow and provide further commentary as this bill makes its way through the California legislature and into the California Insurance Code. Reprinted courtesy of Jon A.Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. A.Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship

    October 21, 2019 —
    The court determined that portions of an arbitration award against the insured contractor based upon faulty workmanship were covered by the policy. Wallace v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122219 (D. N. H. July 23, 2010). Plaintiffs, owners of adjoining homes, hired McPhail Roofing, LLC to replace the roofs of their houses. After installation, the plaintiffs found several problems with their roofs and withheld roughly a third of the agreed-upon contract price from final payments due to McPhail. A roofing consultant found evidence of water leaking through both roofs during rainstorms. Improper installation of the shakes on the roofs allowed rain to seep through to the roof decks (the plywood underneath the roofs) and eventually into the houses. The only way to cure the installation defects was to remove and replace the roofs entirely. Plaintiffs and McPhail went to arbitration. Plaintiffs sought compensation for the damage caused by the leaking and for the replacement costs of the roofs. McPhail sought the remaining payment under the contracts. Nautilus defended McPhail under this CGL policy. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

    December 09, 2019 —
    Do you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance. Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at nkrebs@grsm.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of