BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom homes expert witness Flossmoor Illinois retail construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois parking structure expert witness Flossmoor Illinois low-income housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois office building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois institutional building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois industrial building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois production housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois tract home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois casino resort expert witness Flossmoor Illinois condominiums expert witness Flossmoor Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois townhome construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois condominium expert witness Flossmoor Illinois Medical building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Flossmoor Illinois
    Flossmoor Illinois multi family design expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois construction safety expertFlossmoor Illinois expert witness roofingFlossmoor Illinois expert witness structural engineerFlossmoor Illinois expert witness commercial buildingsFlossmoor Illinois soil failure expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois construction expert witness public projects
    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


    Best Lawyers Recognizes Twelve White and Williams Lawyers

    Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails

    Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

    Contractors Admit Involvement in Kickbacks

    Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

    The Evolution of Construction Defect Trends at West Coast Casualty Seminar

    Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

    Risk-Shifting Tactics for Construction Contracts

    Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

    Construction Defect Claim over LAX Runways

    Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

    2011 Worst Year Ever for Home Sales

    Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction

    Wine without Cheese? (Why a construction contract needs an order of precedence clause)(Law Note)

    Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

    California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

    Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

    Public Law Center Honors Snell & Wilmer Partner Sean M. Sherlock As Volunteers For Justice Attorney Of The Year

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    HB 20-1046 - Private Retainage Reform - Postponed Indefinitely

    The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers

    A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

    Alleged Damage to Personal Property Does Not Revive Coverage for Construction Defects

    Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

    Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Found In South Dakota

    Metrostudy Shows New Subdivisions in Midwest

    Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months

    Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

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

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

    The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Ongoing Operations Exclusion Bars Coverage

    Bad Faith Jury Verdict Upheld After Insurer's Failure to Settle Within Policy Limits

    Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy

    Crumbling Roadways Add Costs to Economy, White House Says

    Fannie Overseer Moves to Rescue Housing With Lower Risk to Lenders

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

    Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

    DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water

    Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?

    Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

    Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment

    Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

    When Do You Call Your Lawyer?
    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. Drawing 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

    Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

    May 11, 2020 —
    In response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply. Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

    KONE is Shaking Up the Industry with BIM

    January 20, 2020 —
    KONE supplies elevators, escalators, autowalks and maintenance and modernization solutions. I sat down with Kenneth Flannigan to discuss how BIM is changing KONE and what it means to the industry. KONE operates in over 60 countries, has around 1.3 million units in service, and moves over one billion people per day. The company’s mission is “to improve the flow of urban life.” Kenneth Flannigan is the BIM Solution Owner for the company. He acknowledges that even though KONE provides equipment and software innovation, in this day and age that’s not enough. “We’re a critical path item. How innovative are we if we’re not working on every single project in a shared 3D environment, like our customers?” Flannigan asks. KONE serves both indirect and paying customers. It works with influencers like architects and with general contractors, builders, and construction managers. It also has a life-cycle relationship with building owners, which is evidenced by the fact that over 30% of the company’s sales come from maintenance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know

    April 06, 2020 —
    Smith Currie provides this update regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act as part of its continuing effort to monitor developments concerning the Coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) and provide guidance as to potential issues that may arise in businesses across the United States. On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”), which contains provisions requiring certain private employers to provide paid leave to employees who cannot work because of Coronavirus, expanding Family and Medical Leave Act coverage, providing for federal tax credits to affected employers, and providing eligible states the ability to further fund their unemployment trust fund accounts. The Act is effective as of April 2, 2020 and will remain in place through December 31, 2020. Below, we provide a summary of the Act and several of its key components, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, and the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act. Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox and Sarah K. Carpenter Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com Ms. Fox may be contacted at klfox@smithcurrie.com Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Tall Mass Timber Buildings Now Possible Under 2021 IBC Code Changes

    February 03, 2020 —
    The International Code Council (ICC) has approved 17 changes to the 2021 editions of the International Building Code (IBC) and International Fire Code, allowing for mass timber buildings up to 18 stories. With the addition of three new mass timber construction types (Type IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C), this is the first time in the history of the modern building code that significantly new construction types have been added to the code. Building Materials The primary building material that makes tall mass timber (TMT) buildings possible is cross-laminated timber (CLT). CLT is manufactured from dimension lumber (nominal 2x lumber) laid side-by-side or mass plywood panels of a specified width. Laminations of lumber are typically laid perpendicular to each other to form panels of various thicknesses that are bonded together using heat resistant adhesives that cure in large hydraulic presses. CLT commonly consists of an odd number of laminations. These solid wood panels can be anywhere from 6 inches to 20 inches nominal thickness and 60 feet long. Typical CLT panels will be 6 inches to 14 inches nominal thickness. The panels are fabricated off site, transported onto the construction site and assembled in a manner that is efficient and remarkably fast. CLT panels can be used as floor, wall, or roof building elements supported by glued-laminated beams and columns. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth Bland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

    March 02, 2020 —
    On December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund. Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

    California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

    April 20, 2020 —
    In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted. Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits). Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears
    Mr. Van Patten may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com

    The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem

    June 01, 2020 —
    Having an end date for risk is important to construction professionals who need to know when they can close their books and destroy files relating to old projects. While professionals typically look to the statute of limitations and repose, these deadlines can sometimes be harder to determine than one might think. State Laws Prohibiting Alteration of Statutes of Limitation Many contractors seek to control the extent of their risk by negotiating the length of their liability period. In some instances, contractors may seek to shorten the statute of limitations to protect against stale claims. While in other instances, owners periodically negotiate for longer periods to ensure that they will not be time barred from pursuing valid claims. While the majority of states enforce such contractual provision, a number of states hold such clauses unenforceable. In these instances, the state’s original statute of limitations will apply regardless of what the contract says. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at krubinstein@preti.com Mr. Fennessy may be contacted at nfennessy@Preti.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

    January 27, 2020 —
    The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, confirming there was no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defect claim against the insured. Fontaine Bros. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148056 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2019). The City of Worcester contracted with Fontaine Brothers, Inc. to install a new ice refrigeration system at the City's indoor ice rink. After construction, the condensers in two chiller units eroded and stopped operating. The City sued Fontaine for the costs of leasing temporary chillers and installing new ones. The City alleged that Fontaine installed condensers with carbon steel tubes instead of contractually required stainless stell tubes.Further, Fontaine and its subcontractors did not adequately maintain the condensers, in breach of the contract. Fontaine's insurer, Acadia Insurance Company, denied coverage. Fontaine sued Acadia. The court noted that the City's complaint plainly alleged faulty workmanship by Fontaine. However, the City's complaint did not allege that Fontaine intended the condensers to corrode and left open the possibility that Fontaine was unaware of any potential problem or did not foresee the corrosion likely to result from the use of carbon steel components or the maintenance work being done by its subcontractor. Therefore, the Cit's complaint did not foreclose the possibility that the corrosion resulting from Fontaine's alleged faulty workmanship and maintenance might be shown to be an unforeseen or unintended consequence of reckless or negligent conduct. Accordingly, it was possible that there was an occurrence under the policy language. 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