BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Mildred Kansas high-rise construction expert witness Mildred Kansas custom home expert witness Mildred Kansas office building expert witness Mildred Kansas mid-rise construction expert witness Mildred Kansas tract home expert witness Mildred Kansas production housing expert witness Mildred Kansas landscaping construction expert witness Mildred Kansas townhome construction expert witness Mildred Kansas housing expert witness Mildred Kansas custom homes expert witness Mildred Kansas industrial building expert witness Mildred Kansas Medical building expert witness Mildred Kansas parking structure expert witness Mildred Kansas low-income housing expert witness Mildred Kansas multi family housing expert witness Mildred Kansas concrete tilt-up expert witness Mildred Kansas retail construction expert witness Mildred Kansas hospital construction expert witness Mildred Kansas Subterranean parking expert witness Mildred Kansas condominium expert witness Mildred Kansas casino resort expert witness Mildred Kansas
    Mildred Kansas construction expert testimonyMildred Kansas fenestration expert witnessMildred Kansas building envelope expert witnessMildred Kansas construction project management expert witnessMildred Kansas engineering consultantMildred Kansas construction defect expert witnessMildred Kansas concrete expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Mildred, 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 Mildred Kansas

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Mildred Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Mildred Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

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

    Mildred Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Mildred Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Mildred Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Mildred Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Mildred Kansas


    CDJ’s #4 Topic of the Year: KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County

    White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

    Is Your Website Accessible And Are You Liable If It Isn't?

    Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

    The New Jersey Theme Park Where Kids’ Backhoe Dreams Come True

    Steven Cvitanovic Recognized in JD Supra's 2017 Readers' Choice Awards

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

    Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

    Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

    D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

    That’s not the way we’ve always done it! (Why you should update your office practices)

    Verdict In Favor Of Insured Homeowner Reversed For Improper Jury Instructions

    Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

    Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate

    Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

    Floors Collapse at Russian University in St. Petersburg

    Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims

    Under the Hood of U.S. Construction Spending Is Revised Data

    Harmon Towers Duty to Defend Question Must Wait, Says Court

    California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

    A Sample Itinerary to get the Most out of West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar

    Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Negligence Claim Against Building Company Owner, Individually

    Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

    London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

    Factor the Factor in Factoring

    Contract Provisions That Help Manage Risk on Long-Term Projects

    City Development with Interactive 3D Models

    San Francisco Bucks U.S. Trend With Homeownership Gains

    Affordable Global Housing Will Cost $11 Trillion

    Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It

    Home insurance perks for green-friendly design (guest post)

    Construction Defect Bill Removed from Committee Calendar

    Circumstances In Which Design Professional Has Construction Lien Rights

    CA Homeowners Challenging Alternate Pre-Litigation Procedures

    Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

    2018 Construction Outlook: Mature Expansion, Deceleration in Some Sectors, Continued Growth in Others

    Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

    Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

    Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors

    HB 20-1046 - Private Retainage Reform - Postponed Indefinitely

    10 Safety Tips for General Contractors

    U.S. Homebuilder Confidence Rises Most in Almost a Year

    Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

    Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

    “Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint

    Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

    More Regulations for Federal Contractors
    Corporate Profile

    MILDRED KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Mildred, Kansas Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Mildred's most acknowledged construction practice groups, CGL carriers, builders, owners, and public agencies. Drawing from a diverse pool of construction and design professionals, BHA is able to simultaneously analyze complex claims from the perspective of design, engineering, cost, or standard of care.

    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Mildred, Kansas

    Sometimes You Get Away with Default (but don’t count on it)

    July 27, 2020 —
    As an almost universal rule here in Virginia, failing to show up for court or respond to a lawsuit is a bad idea. Consequences include default judgment against you without the right to defend or make your case. Courts simply enter judgment and the consequences of that judgment will follow. However, and as is often the case around here, there are small exceptions where the courts of Virginia allow the defaulting party off the hook. Sullivan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. KBE Building Corporation is just such a case. In Sullivan Mechanical, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia was faced with a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment from KBE. The facts are laid out in the opinion, but basically come down to the usual subcontractor not paid by the general contractor and general contractor has reasons for non-payment. Subcontractor, Sullivan Mechanical, sued KBE and KBE failed to respond in a timely manner. One day after the deadline for response had passed, Sullivan moved for entry of default and the clerk entered the default that same day. KBE moved to vacate the default a mere 6 days after entry of default. 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

    Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas

    March 02, 2020 —
    New York Partner Karen L. Campbell and Fort Lauderdale Partner Kristen D. Perkins will both speak at the upcoming CLM 2020 Annual Conference taking place March 18 to 20 at the Gaylord Texan Resort outside Dallas, Texas. On March 19 at 2:00 p.m., Ms. Perkins will join a panel discussion titled “Predictive Analytics – You Don’t Need a Crystal Ball to Predict the Future,” exploring how predictive analytics affects litigation management programs, including case budgets, case cycle times, and claims outcomes. The panelists will also look at how machine learning picks up on nuances or anomalies that can affect analytics and give attendees a clearer picture on expected case parameters, and how that information can empower claims professionals during firm selection. Then, on March 20 at 10:40 a.m., Ms. Campbell will join a roundtable discussion titled “How to Calculate Damages and Defend in Serious Injury Cases,” covering the calculation of both economic and non-economic damages, as well as trends and recent verdicts involving punitive damages and assessing the various types of third-party liability. Reprinted courtesy of Karen Campbell, Lewis Brisbois and Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Campbell may be contacted at Karen.Campbell@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

    March 09, 2020 —
    Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
    Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

    Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

    May 11, 2020 —
    In support of financial institutions and borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the newly enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) includes a number of provisions permitting lenders to suspend, during a covered period, requirements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with respect to categorizing certain loan modifications as a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) due to COVID-19. In light of the CARES Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a series of answers to FAQs for financial institutions with respect to loan modifications. The FAQs help guide lenders as well as borrowers as they address pending defaults under existing credit facilities. The FAQs encourage financial institutions to work with borrowers who may be unable to meet their payment obligations due to COVID-19 in several ways: Payment Accommodations Short-term accommodations which modify, extend, suspend or defer repayment terms should be intended to facilitate the borrower’s ability to work through the immediate impact of the virus. According to the FAQs, all loan accommodation programs should ultimately be targeted towards repayment. To that end, the FDIC recommends that financial institutions address deferred or skipped payments by either extending the original maturity date or by making those payments due in a balloon payment at the maturity date of the loan. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis and Kristen E. Andreoli Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

    May 18, 2020 —
    In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (No. H044890; filed 1/16/20, ord. pub. 2/13/20), a California appeals court ruled that commercial general liability insurance for personal and advertising injury, defined to include malicious prosecution, does not cover a Walker Process antitrust cause of action under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act for using a fraudulently procured patent to attempt to monopolize the market. Travelers insured KLA under commercial liability policies with coverage for personal and advertising injury liability, which was defined as “injury, other than ‘advertising injury’, caused by. . . (2) Malicious prosecution.” Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    These Pioneers Are Already Living the Green Recovery

    June 01, 2020 —
    In the wake of the historic global economic shutdown in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, governments are unleashing trillions of dollars in a bid to create jobs and spur economic recovery. The scale of this stimulus is unprecedented, in some cases amounting to more than 10% of countries’ gross domestic product. At the same time, an overwhelming number of economists, finance ministers, and business leaders are saying that much of that money needs to help—and certainly not hinder—our ability to cut emissions. If that advice is heeded, these funds will go to emerging technologies that would have sounded like science fiction not so long ago. Now they have ambitions to help lower greenhouse gas emissions on an industrial scale. Leading the way is the European Union, which was planning a green transformation even before the outbreak began. It aims to make the 27-member bloc the first carbon neutral continent by 2050, and the pandemic hasn’t changed that. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Laura Millan Lombrana & Akshat Rathi, Bloomberg

    Illinois Appellate Court Finds That Damages in Excess of Policy Limits Do Not Trigger Right to Independent Counsel

    June 22, 2020 —
    Under Illinois law, an insurer’s duty to defend includes the right to control the defense, which allows insurers to protect their financial interest in the outcome of the litigation. However, where a conflict of interest exists, the insured, rather than the insurer, is entitled to assume control of the defense of the underlying action. If this occurs, the insurer satisfies its obligation to defend by reimbursing the insured for the cost of defense provided by independent counsel selected by the insured. What circumstances and situations arise to the level of an actual conflict of interest between the insurer and insured are often grounds for dispute. In Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 2020 IL App (1st) 182491 (Apr. 7, 2020), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed whether damages awarded by a jury in excess of the policy limits were sufficient to trigger a right to independent counsel for post-trial and appellate proceedings. According to the Illinois Appellate Court, at least under the facts of the Ryerson case, the answer is “no.” In Ryerson, Nancy Hoffman sued Ryerson for injuries sustained in a tractor-trailer accident. Ryerson tendered the suit to its primary insurer, Travelers, and its umbrella insurer, Illinois National. The policy limits were $2 million and $25 million, respectively. A jury found in favor of Hoffman for over $27.6 million in damages, and Ryerson appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
    Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

    More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

    February 03, 2020 —
    As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
    an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
    The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” 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