• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois parking structure expert witness Flossmoor Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Flossmoor Illinois multi family housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois institutional building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois industrial building expert witness Flossmoor Illinois hospital construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois townhome construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois tract home expert witness Flossmoor Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Flossmoor Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois condominium expert witness Flossmoor Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois production housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois condominiums expert witness Flossmoor Illinois retail construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Flossmoor Illinois custom homes expert witness Flossmoor Illinois low-income housing expert witness Flossmoor Illinois casino resort expert witness Flossmoor Illinois
    Flossmoor Illinois construction expert witness consultantFlossmoor Illinois building code compliance expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois construction expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois concrete expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois forensic architectFlossmoor Illinois window expert witnessFlossmoor Illinois construction scheduling and change order evaluation 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

    Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June

    Washington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic Field

    Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit

    U.S. Codes for Deck Attachment

    No Duty to Defend Additional Insured for Construction Defects

    Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

    Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

    Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    Home Buyers Lose as U.S. Bond Rally Skips Mortgage Rates

    Workers Compensation Immunity and the Intentional Tort Exception

    Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

    Buffett Says ‘No-Brainer’ to Get a Mortgage to Short Rates

    XL Group Pairs with America Contractor’s Insurance Group to Improve Quality of Construction

    Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

    WSHB Expands to Philadelphia

    Developers Celebrate Arizona’s Opportunity Zones

    Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

    Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

    Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.

    Wall Enclosing Georgia Neighborhood Built for Walking Dead TV Show

    Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

    Thousands of London Residents Evacuated due to Fire Hazards

    South Carolina Contractors Regain General Liability Coverage

    An Expert’s Qualifications are Important

    New York Appeals Court Rekindles the Spark

    Schools Remain Top Priority in Carolinas as Cleanup From Storms Continues

    Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

    Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

    Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

    As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

    Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

    Travelers v. Larimer County and the Concept of Covered Cause of Loss

    TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

    What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

    Account for the Imposition of Material Tariffs in your Construction Contract

    Haight Attorneys Selected to 2018 Southern California Rising Stars List

    School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

    CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

    Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts

    Boilerplate Contract Language on Permits could cause Problems for Contractors

    Time to Repair Nevada’s Construction Defect Laws?

    Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

    Grad Student Sues UC Santa Cruz over Mold in Residence

    Celebrities Lose Case in Construction Defect Arbitration

    Business Interruption Claim Upheld
    Corporate Profile


    The Flossmoor, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group is comprised from a number of credentialed construction professionals possessing extensive trial support experience relevant to construction defect and claims matters. Leveraging from more than 25 years experience, BHA provides construction related trial support and expert services to the nation's most recognized construction litigation practitioners, Fortune 500 builders, commercial general liability carriers, owners, construction practice groups, and a variety of state and local government agencies.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Flossmoor, Illinois

    Steven L. Heisdorffer Joins Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    March 27, 2019 —
    Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell is pleased to announce that Steve Heisdorffer has joined the firm as Special Counsel. Steve joins the firm after having been a partner at Godin & Baity, LLC for the last twenty-five years. Mr. Heisdorffer represents construction professionals in construction defect disputes and advises them regarding risk mitigation and transfer. Mr. Heisdorffer is an experienced trial lawyer that has tried commercial disputes and construction defect cases in arbitration forums and courts over the last 28 years. In addition, he has successfully represented large and small companies in commercial disputes, including computer software performance and intellectual property disputes, taking several to trial. Steve has also acted as a counselor to technology companies. Steve has expertise drafting and negotiating development agreements, distributor agreements, license agreements, and service agreements for his technology clients. Mr. Heisdorffer graduated with high honors from both the University of Northern Iowa and University of Iowa, College of Law and is an AV ® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell and has presented to a variety of trade groups including technology, construction, and insurance industries. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
    Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at

    Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

    May 20, 2019 —
    The Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position. In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine and Alexander D. Russo Mr. Bracken may be contacted at Mr. Levine may be contacted at Mr. Russo may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Summary Findings of the Fourth National Climate Assessment

    January 02, 2019 —
    On November 23, the latest National Climate Assessment, Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), was released by the U.S. Global Research Program, as required by the Clean Air Act. The Assessment, comprising three volumes and 1600 pages, contains some rather bleak findings which the Report usefully summarizes. Here’s a description of these findings. 1. Communities. The report states that “climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States.” In particular, “more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events” will continue to damage infrastructure , ecosystems and social systems. However, “global action” to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce these risks. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

    May 01, 2019 —
    The Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j. Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs. Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit. 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

    Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

    April 10, 2019 —
    For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
    • Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
    • Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
    Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at

    New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

    January 21, 2019 —
    On November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018). First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
    Mr. Briganti may be contacted at

    Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

    December 19, 2018 —
    Expert testimony (opinions) – very important testimony in construction disputes. Whether it is a delay claim, an inefficiency claim, a defect claim, etc., expert testimony plays an invaluable role in construction disputes. Construction attorneys work closely with expert witnesses to ensure that an expert helps render an opinion to support their client’s burden of proof (including damages) or an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation

    April 10, 2019 —
    Deference will be given to a procuring public agency in a bid protest, particularly when the issue involves whether a bid is non-responsive and constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation. You do not believe me? Perhaps you will after this holding in Biscayne Marine Partners, LLC v. City of Miami, Florida, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D467a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019): Consequently, no principle of law is clearly established…as to any obligation of the trial court (and, by analogy, an administrative hearing officer) [in a bid protest] to decide or to defer [whether a bid constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation]. If anything, the existing and clearly established principle of law inclines toward judicial deference in public agency competitive bidding disputes when the agency has exercised it discretion absent illegality, fraud, oppression or misconduct. I do not know about you, but that last underlined sentence is pretty strong language regarding judicial deference! In this case, Miami (the procuring public agency) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the redevelopment and lease of waterfront property, for the operation of a marina, boatyard, restaurant, wet slips, and a dry storage facility on the property. Miami issued five addenda to the RFP. There were three bidders. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at