• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    multi family housing expert witness La Crosse Kansas office building expert witness La Crosse Kansas custom homes expert witness La Crosse Kansas tract home expert witness La Crosse Kansas Subterranean parking expert witness La Crosse Kansas institutional building expert witness La Crosse Kansas low-income housing expert witness La Crosse Kansas townhome construction expert witness La Crosse Kansas concrete tilt-up expert witness La Crosse Kansas Medical building expert witness La Crosse Kansas hospital construction expert witness La Crosse Kansas structural steel construction expert witness La Crosse Kansas casino resort expert witness La Crosse Kansas mid-rise construction expert witness La Crosse Kansas landscaping construction expert witness La Crosse Kansas retail construction expert witness La Crosse Kansas condominiums expert witness La Crosse Kansas high-rise construction expert witness La Crosse Kansas parking structure expert witness La Crosse Kansas condominium expert witness La Crosse Kansas production housing expert witness La Crosse Kansas custom home expert witness La Crosse Kansas
    La Crosse Kansas expert witness windowsLa Crosse Kansas expert witness commercial buildingsLa Crosse Kansas construction expert testimonyLa Crosse Kansas structural engineering expert witnessesLa Crosse Kansas construction scheduling expert witnessLa Crosse Kansas eifs expert witnessLa Crosse Kansas delay claim expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    La Crosse, 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 La Crosse Kansas

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

    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    McPherson Area Contractors Association
    Local # 1735
    PO Box 38
    McPherson, KS 67460
    La Crosse Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    La Crosse Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    La Crosse Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Hutchinson
    Local # 1720
    PO Box 2209
    Hutchinson, KS 67504

    La Crosse Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    La Crosse Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    La Crosse Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Flint Hills Area Builders Association
    Local # 1726
    2601 Anderson Ave Ste 207
    Manhattan, KS 66502

    La Crosse Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For La Crosse Kansas

    Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work

    Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job

    “If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

    Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

    One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

    Addressing the Defective Stucco Crisis

    Three Reasons Late Payments Persist in the Construction Industry

    Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

    Ensuing Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage

    Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

    Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower

    Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

    Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

    After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

    Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

    Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

    Condemnation Actions: How Valuable Is Your Evidence of Property Value?

    $24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation

    Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law

    Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

    Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

    World Green Building Council Calls for Net-Zero Embodied Carbon in Buildings by 2050

    London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building

    Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

    Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

    Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

    Georgia Court Reaffirms Construction Defect Decision

    Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects

    Hovnanian Increases Construction Defect Reserves for 2012

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

    BHA Attending the Construction Law Conference in San Antonio, Texas

    Does Arbitration Apply to Contemporaneously Executed Contracts (When One of the Contracts Does Not Have an Arbitration Provision)?

    Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)

    Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

    Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

    NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers

    Hammer & Hand’s Top Ten Predictions for US High Performance Building in 2014

    The ‘Sole Option’ Arbitration Provision in Construction Contracts

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

    Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

    Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense

    Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent

    Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

    Seller Faces Federal Charges for Lying on Real Estate Disclosure Forms

    Formaldehyde-Free Products for Homes

    New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

    Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose
    Corporate Profile


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

    Appreciate The Risks You Are Assuming In Your Contract

    February 10, 2020 —
    APPRECIATE THE RISKS YOU ARE ASSUMING IN YOUR CONTRACT. Otherwise, those risks will come back and bite you in the butt. This language is not capitalized for naught. Regardless of the type of contract you are entering into, there are risks you will be assuming. You need to appreciate those risks because there may be insurance you can obtain to cover that risk. For instance, exculpatory provisions (or get-out-of-jail provisions) in contracts are enforceable if they are unambiguous. “Such provisions are deemed to be unambiguous and enforceable when the language unequivocally demonstrates a clear and understandable intention for the defendant to be relieved from liability such that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he or she is contracting away.” Pillay v. Public Storage, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D2744c (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). An example of an exculpatory provision can be found in the public storage rental contract found in Pillay that read: (1) ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY IS STORED BY OCCUPANT AT OCCUPANT’S SOLE RISK. (2) Owner and Owner’s agents . . . will not be responsible for, and Tenant releases Owner and Owner’s agents from any responsibility for, any loss, liability, claim, expense, damage to property . . . including without limitation any Loss arising from the active or passive acts, omission or negligence of Owner or Owner’s agents. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

    June 15, 2020 —
    I am back. It feels like an entirety since I last posted. But a hellacious trial schedule got me off the blogosphere for some time. Plus, there was nothing to write about. But I am back with a bang thanks to a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning the interplay of a forum selection clause appearing in an arbitration clause in a construction contract and the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. In Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. v. Hospitality Builders, Inc., the federal court (Judge Joyner) ruled that the federal arbitration act preempted the Payment Act’s prohibition on forum selection clauses and held that an arbitration must proceed in South Dakota even though the construction project were the work was performed was located in Pennsylvania. The Payment Act applies to all commercial construction projects performed in Pennsylvania. As some you might know, Section 514 of the Payment Act, 73 P.S. 514, prohibits choice of law and forum selection clauses. It states “[m]aking a contract subject to the laws of another state or requiring that any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process on the contract occur in another state, shall be unenforceable.” Therefore, if a construction contract is for a project located in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law must apply and all disputes must be adjudicated in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
    Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at

    Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

    February 24, 2020 —
    ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Seven Key Issues for Construction Professionals to Consider When Dealing With COVID-19

    April 13, 2020 —
    By now every construction professional has been inundated with articles regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on the construction industry. The sheer volume of information is overwhelming and changes by the hour. This article is intended to summarize key issues affecting construction professionals and serve as a general road map for navigating the crisis. 1. Determine Project Status The first consideration is whether the construction projects at issue are allowed to proceed given “shelter in place” and related orders. Generally speaking, Governor Newsom has deemed construction to be essential and, therefore, exempt from California’s “Safer at Home” order. There is some debate as to whether the governor’s order takes priority over contradictory local (City and County) orders. For example, some Northern California counties and the City of Berkeley have issued orders expressly providing that their local orders legally supersede the State order because the local orders are more restrictive. If a local ordinance, public entity representative, or the project owner orders the project to shut down, the parties will need to make a fact specific determination regarding how to proceed at that time. If the project proceeds, employee safety is paramount. In the City of Los Angeles employers are required to develop a “comprehensive COVID-19 exposure control plan” that includes a laundry list of safety requirements. Regardless of the jurisdiction, the parties must err on the side of caution and comply with social distancing (six feet), refrain from holding meetings, and close the project to the public. Anyone who can work remotely should be encouraged to do so. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Adams, Gibbs Giden
    Mr. Adams may be contacted at

    Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

    April 13, 2020 —
    Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found here and here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies. According to the complaints:
    On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
    Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
    Mr. Levine may be contacted at

    Lease-Leaseback Fight Continues

    June 01, 2020 —
    It’s like the rematch between Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed. In the right corner we have the California Taxpayers Action Network. In the left corner, Taber Construction, Inc. The title in contention: Construction of California’s Lease-Leaseback Program and, specifically, whether a construction firm can provide both pre-construction services as well as perform construction or, whether doing so, would be an impermissible conflict of interest under the Lease-Leaseback Law. In their first appellate court match, California Taxpayers Action Network argued that a lease-leaseback arrangement between Taber Construction and the Mount Diablo Unified School District, whereby the District agreed to lease the site to Taber Construction one dollar (which is permissible) and to pay Taber a “guaranteed project cost” of $14,743,395 comprised of “tenant improvement payments” totaling $13,269,057 prior to the District taking delivery of the project (which was the issue in dispute) and six “lease payment amount[s]” of $345,723 plus interest paid in 30-day intervals, violated the Lease-Leaseback Law because the bulk of the payments by the District to Taber Construction occurred during construction rather than during the lease-term which could only “truly” occur after the District took delivery of the project. The 1st District Court of Appeal sided with Taber Construction, and in doing so created an appellate court split with the 5th District Court of Appeal’s decision in Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, 237 Cal.App.4th 261 (2015), which held that contractor who received all payments prior to turnover of the project to the district violated the Lease-Leaseback Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    City of Seattle Temporarily Shuts Down Public Works to Enforce Health and Safety Plans

    April 13, 2020 —
    The Governor’s Stay Home, Stay Safe Order mandates that essential businesses must establish and implement social distancing and sanitation measures established by OSHA and the WA State DOH: With construction work continuing on essential construction projects, some jurisdictions, such as the City of Seattle, are taking additional steps to enforce and oversee the establishment and implementation of updated Health and Safety plans on construction projects. The City of Seattle’s Mayor Jenny Durkan announced yesterday a two-day temporary suspension of Public Works construction beginning on Thursday, April 9th, to conduct health and safety training for workers and update protocols. The announcement may be viewed here. The City of Seattle also sent a letter in this regard and asked all contractors and owners provide project-specific responses to the Washington Building Trades COVID-19 Construction Industry Emergency Requirements. Herein are the links to the letter and attached requirements. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
    Mr. Yamada may be contacted at

    Ordinary Use of Term In Insurance Policy Prevailed

    June 08, 2020 —
    There are cases where you feel for the plaintiff, but understand why they did not prevail, despite the creative efforts of their counsel. The case of Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 958 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2020) is one of these cases. In Robinson, the plaintiff moved into a home that turned out to be infested with a highly venomous spider. Efforts to eradicate the spider proved unsuccessful and the spider apparently infested the entire home. The plaintiff made a claim under their homeowner’s property insurance policy arguing that their home suffered a physical loss caused by the spider infestation as the spider presented an irreparable condition that rendered the home unsafe for occupancy. (It probably did!). The property insurer denied coverage because the policy had an insurance exclusion for loss caused by birds, vermin, rodents, or insects. The insurer claimed the spider is an insect or vermin and, therefore, there is no coverage based on the exclusion. The insured creatively argued that “scientifically speaking” a spider is an arachnid and not an insect. Neither the trial court nor the Eleventh Circuit found this argument persuasive. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at