BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    concrete tilt-up expert witness Murphysboro Illinois Medical building expert witness Murphysboro Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Murphysboro Illinois institutional building expert witness Murphysboro Illinois low-income housing expert witness Murphysboro Illinois office building expert witness Murphysboro Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois housing expert witness Murphysboro Illinois casino resort expert witness Murphysboro Illinois multi family housing expert witness Murphysboro Illinois condominium expert witness Murphysboro Illinois parking structure expert witness Murphysboro Illinois tract home expert witness Murphysboro Illinois retail construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois custom home expert witness Murphysboro Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois townhome construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois custom homes expert witness Murphysboro Illinois hospital construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois condominiums expert witness Murphysboro Illinois
    Murphysboro Illinois architectural engineering expert witnessMurphysboro Illinois engineering consultantMurphysboro Illinois construction project management expert witnessMurphysboro Illinois hospital construction expert witnessMurphysboro Illinois multi family design expert witnessMurphysboro Illinois consulting general contractorMurphysboro Illinois testifying construction expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Murphysboro, 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 Murphysboro Illinois

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


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Southern Illinois
    Local # 1466
    PO Box 510
    Cobden, IL 62920

    Murphysboro Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Southwest Illinois
    Local # 1468
    6100 W Main St
    Maryville, IL 62062

    Murphysboro Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Effingham Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 1423
    PO Box 1323
    Effingham, IL 62401

    Murphysboro Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Springfield Area Home Builders Association
    Local # 1470
    3921 Pintail Dr Ste B
    Springfield, IL 62711

    Murphysboro Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Illinois
    Local # 1400
    112 W Edwards Street
    Springfield, IL 62704

    Murphysboro Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Metro Decatur Home Builders Association
    Local # 1435
    PO Box 1166
    Decatur, IL 62525

    Murphysboro Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Quincy
    Local # 1460
    PO Box 3615
    Quincy, IL 62305
    Murphysboro Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Murphysboro Illinois


    The Trend in the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation

    Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

    Seventh Circuit Remands “Waters of the United States” Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a “Significant Nexus”

    No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles

    Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

    Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

    What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

    Is Arbitration Always the Answer?

    Angelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at Countrywide

    Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

    David M. McLain, Esq. to Speak at the 2014 CLM Claims College

    Construction Up in Northern Ohio

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

    Indiana Court Enforces Contract Provisions rather than Construction Drawing Markings

    New Washington Law Nixes Unfair Indemnification in Construction Contracts

    Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears

    Even Toilets Aren’t Safe as Hackers Target Home Devices

    Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims

    OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules

    Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management: Brett Moore Authors Law360 Article

    Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline

    Smart Cities Offer New Ideas for Connectivity

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

    Texas City Pulls Plug on Fossil Fuels With Shift to Solar

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

    Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry

    What to Know Before Building a Guesthouse

    Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

    DRCOG’s Findings on the Impact of Construction Defect Litigation Have Been Released (And the Results Should Not Surprise You)

    Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation

    Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

    Insurance Company Must Show that Lead Came from Building Materials

    The Biggest Change to the Mechanics Lien Law Since 1963

    Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

    CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

    Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

    LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

    Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

    Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

    Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

    ‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair

    Construction Feb. Jobs Jump by 61,000, Jobless Rate Up from Jan.

    A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

    Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion

    BE PROACTIVE: Steps to Preserve and Enhance Your Insurance Rights In Light of the Recent Natural Disasters

    Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?

    Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Update

    Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

    Denver Condo Development Increasing, with Caution
    Corporate Profile

    MURPHYSBORO ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Murphysboro, 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 Murphysboro'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
    Murphysboro, Illinois

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

    December 11, 2018 —
    Earlier this month, in Frederick Mutual Insurance Company v. Hall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that coverage for faulty workmanship claims is “simply not the kind of coverage insurance agents and insurance companies expect to provide” to construction industry professionals “unless the insured explicitly requests such coverage.” 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018). In Hall, a stone masonry contractor was sued by its customer for causing over $350,000 in property damage resulting from “substandard and defective work” performed on the customer’s residence. The insurer sought a declaration that it owed neither a defense nor indemnity for those damages because, under Pennsylvania law, the policy did not cover property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com

    Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts

    March 27, 2019 —
    The purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals. Introduction and Background Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement. Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

    Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

    February 27, 2019 —
    On October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision. The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond. Reprinted courtesy of Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

    April 10, 2019 —
    A statute of repose terminates the right to file a claim after a specified time even if the injury has not yet occurred.[1] The construction statute of repose bars claims arising from construction, design, or engineering of any improvement upon real property that has not accrued within six years after substantial completion.[2] But what constitutes an “improvement upon real property” necessitating application of the six-year bar, and when does the bar NOT apply? The Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed these questions in Puente v. Resources Conservation Co., Int’l.[3] There, the personal representative of the estate of Javier Puente sued several parties after Mr. Puente, an employee of a manufacturer, suffered fatal boric acid burns in 2012 while performing maintenance on a pump system installed at the manufacturer’s facility in 2002. The estate alleged claims of negligence and liability under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA).[4] The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding that the installed pump system constituted a statutory “improvement upon real property” and the six-year statute of repose applied. The estate appealed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?

    January 28, 2019 —
    As anyone who reads this construction blog on a regular basis knows, I believe that the move to newer sustainable building practices (while bringing about a new or different set of potential risks) is both necessary and laudable. Because of this fact, you may be asking why the headline for today’s post. After all, I am a LEED AP and assisted in the drafting of the LEED/Green Building addendum to the ConsensusDOCS so I must be pro LEED (or any other) certification of buildings. To the extent that such certification encourages best practices and more sustainable building stock, I am pro certification. However, certification is not a necessary carrot to bring builders around to such practices. As a recent article in EcoHome Magazine (thanks to Todd Hawkins at BuilderFish for alerting me to the article) points out, companies are already moving toward these practices with or without certification and it’s added layer of expense. Economic, air quality, and moral (“its the right thing to do”) factors are pushing executives to such practices. According to EcoHome Magazine, while LEED retains the lions share of green certifications, more and more companies are either using internal standards or trying out other certification programs, including Energy Star. 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

    Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

    November 14, 2018 —
    The Transbay Joint Powers Authority announced on Oct. 10 that emergency remedial work at the 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco, on the closed Fremont Street between Howard and Mission streets, will continue into early next week. The block, which crosses under the hub, will reopen to traffic and the public on Wednesday, Oct. 17, rather than Oct. 12, as previously announced, says TJPA. The transit center itself, which opened in August, is temporarily closed. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
    Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

    2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight

    January 15, 2019 —
    Haight proudly announces the promotion of Renata Hoddinott, Sarah Marsey and Annette Mijianovic to Partner in January 2019. Renata and Sarah joined Haight’s San Francisco office in 2016. Renata relocated from a litigation firm in the Los Angeles area. She focuses her practice on professional liability, general liability, risk management & insurance law and transportation law. Before coming to Haight, Sarah was with a respected trial firm in Anchorage, Alaska. She handles a variety of complex matters in appellate law, food safety, construction law and general liability. Annette has been with Haight’s Los Angeles office for almost 12 years. Annette joined the firm as a summer clerk in 2007 and has continued to build her practice handling cases related to commercial litigation, products liability and transportation law. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Renata L. Hoddinott, Sarah A. Marsey and Annette F. Mijanovic Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of