• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    custom homes expert witness Murphysboro Illinois condominiums expert witness Murphysboro Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois casino resort expert witness Murphysboro Illinois custom home expert witness Murphysboro Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Murphysboro Illinois townhome construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois retail construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois hospital construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois tract home expert witness Murphysboro Illinois industrial building expert witness Murphysboro Illinois production housing expert witness Murphysboro Illinois multi family housing expert witness Murphysboro Illinois institutional building expert witness Murphysboro Illinois office building expert witness Murphysboro Illinois low-income housing expert witness Murphysboro Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Murphysboro Illinois Medical building expert witness Murphysboro Illinois housing expert witness Murphysboro Illinois condominium expert witness Murphysboro Illinois
    Murphysboro Illinois fenestration expert witnessMurphysboro Illinois construction scheduling expert witnessMurphysboro Illinois expert witness concrete failureMurphysboro Illinois window expert witnessMurphysboro Illinois engineering consultantMurphysboro Illinois construction expert witness consultantMurphysboro Illinois construction expert witnesses
    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

    Cerberus, Blackstone Loosening Credit for U.S. Landlords

    Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit

    Insurers' Motion to Knock Out Bad Faith, Negligent Misrepresentation Claims in Construction Defect Case Denied

    Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab

    Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules

    Cincinnati Goes Green

    Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

    Seller Faces Federal Charges for Lying on Real Estate Disclosure Forms

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Insured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial Tactics

    Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits

    Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

    Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers

    Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

    Lien Waivers Should Be Fair — And Efficient

    Tacoma Construction Site Uncovers Gravestones

    CA Supreme Court: Right to Repair Act (SB 800) is the Exclusive Remedy for Residential Construction Defect Claims – So Now What?

    Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

    San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower

    Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor

    Nevada Senate Minority Leader Gets Construction Defect Bill to Committee

    Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

    Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

    Manhattan Condo Resale Prices Reach Record High

    Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense

    MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

    Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

    Speculative Luxury Homebuilding on the Rise

    Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

    Federal Court Finds Occurrence for Faulty Workmanship Under Virginia Law

    Eighth Circuit Considers Judicial Estoppel in Hazardous Substance Release-Related Personal Injury Case

    Tallest U.S. Skyscraper Dream Kept Alive by Irish Builder

    Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee

    Narberth Mayor Urges Dubious Legal Action

    SunCal Buys Oak Knoll Development for the Second Time

    Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill

    Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

    David M. McLain named Law Week Colorado’s 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

    Home Sales Going to Investors in Daytona Beach Area

    Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So

    Engineers Found ‘Hundreds’ of Cracks in California Bridge

    Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

    Pentagon Has Big Budget for Construction in Colorado

    New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

    U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

    Nevada Bill Would Bring Changes to Construction Defects

    Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

    Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

    Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

    Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?
    Corporate Profile


    The Murphysboro, 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
    Murphysboro, Illinois

    Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

    October 02, 2018 —
    The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding the policy's collapse coverage did not apply. Cmty. Garage v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 2680 (Mich. Ct. App. June 19, 2018). The insured operated a truck repair business. In June 2016, the insured's place of business sustained damage due to failure of several trusses providing structural support to the building's roof. The failure was due to latent construction defects leading to an insufficient load bearing capacity. The roof began to sag while one of the walls bulged outward due to the sudden pressure overload. The insured hired a construction firm to install temporary shoring to support the roof and prevent further damage. All of the building's walls remained standing and, although the roof sagged, it also remained intact. However, the building could not be safely occupied until repairs were completed. 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

    Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision

    February 11, 2019 —
    A recent opinion came out that held that even though an indemnification provision in a subcontract was unenforceable per Florida Statute s. 725.06, the unenforceable portion is merely severed out of the indemnification clause leaving the rest of the clause intact. In essence, an otherwise invalid indemnification clause is bailed out by this ruling (which does not even discuss whether this subcontract had a severability provision that states that if any portion of any provision in the subcontract is invalid, such invalid portion shall be severed and the remaining portion of the provision shall remain in full force and effect). This opinion arose from a construction defect case, CB Contractxors, LLC v. Allens Steel Products, Inc.,43 Fla.L.Weekly D2773a (Fla. 5thDCA 2018), where the general contractor, sued by an association, flowed down damages to subcontractors based on the contractual indemnification provision in the subcontracts. Subcontractors moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim because it was not compliant with Florida Statute s. 725.06. The indemnification provision required the subcontractors to indemnify the general contractor even for the general contractors own partial negligence, but failed to specify a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification as required by Florida Statute s. 725.06. (The indemnification clause in the subcontract was the standard intermediate form of indemnification that required the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for claims regardless of whether the claims were caused in part by the general contractor.) Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at

    Arizona Court Determines Statute of Limitations Applicable to a Claim for Reformation of a Deed of Trust (and a Related Claim for Declaratory Judgment)

    October 16, 2018 —
    In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pheasant Grove LLC, 798 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 15 (August 23, 2018), the Court of Appeals addressed the question of what statute of limitations was applicable to a declaratory judgment claim. In that case, a bank’s deed of trust inadvertently omitted one of the lots that was supposed to secure that bank’s loan. The deed of trust should have covered lots 8 and 9, but by its terms covered only lot 8. A different bank subsequently recorded a deed of trust that encumbered lot 9. In connection with the second bank’s foreclosure of its deed of trust, the first bank sought reformation and a declaratory judgment with regard to its deed of trust, seeking to have that deed of trust cover both lots 8 and 9, as intended. The trial court determined that the first bank’s reformation claim was filed too late, and also determined that the declaratory judgment claim was filed too late, beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
    Mr. Parker may be contacted at

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    January 21, 2019 —
    As I’ve stated numerous times here at Musings, in Virginia the contract is king. The courts of Virginia will read a contract as written and where there is a contract (read as foreshadowing), the courts will assume the parties knew what they were doing and enforce it by its terms. However, there has to be a contract in the first place. When can something look like a contract but still not be a contract? When there isn’t mutual assent according to the case of Knox Energy, LLC v. Gasco Drilling, Inc. In the Knox case, along with a ruling on discovery abuse that is a topic of other blogs, considered a jury instruction on mutual assent given by the district court in a case where Knox contended that it inadvertently sent an unexecuted drilling contract form to Gasco and then inadvertently executed it when Gasco returned it. While this would not normally cause this series of events to be a non-contract, Knox also contended that Gasco knew that Knox had no intention to enter into the drilling contract and that Gasco jumped at the deal. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Almost Nothing Is Impossible

    October 30, 2018 —
    In today’s ever-changing legal and political climate, contractors are being forced to deal with events and circumstances that seemed improbable just a short time ago. These changing circumstances have led some contractors to question whether they are required to continue performing in the face of uncertainty and, in many cases, potentially large losses. The doctrines of impossibility and impracticability, if proven, can serve as powerful defenses and excuse performance of a construction contract. However, contractors should exercise great caution before relying on these defenses as an excuse for nonperformance, as the consequences of stopping work without proper justification can be disastrous. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Brian N. Krulick, Smith Currie
    Mr. Krulick may be contacted at

    Survey: Workers Lack Awareness of Potentially Hazardous Nanomaterials

    December 11, 2018 —
    Microscopic nanoparticles are part of the mix in nearly 600 construction products. The particles add strength, durability and other desired characteristics. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at

    FEMA Administrator Slams Failures to Prepare, Evacuate Before Storms

    October 23, 2018 —
    Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Brock Long angrily criticized the failure of citizens to heed evacuation warnings and leaders to better prepare for natural disasters such as Hurricane Michael. "It's frustrating to us because we repeat this same cycle over and over again," Long said during a press briefing Friday at FEMA headquarters in Washington. "If you want to live in these areas, you've got to do it in a more resilient fashion." Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg

    Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

    February 19, 2019 —
    In a recent case in Kentucky[1], a sub-tier subcontractor sued the general contractor and owner for failure to pay for extra work. At the trial, the court held the subcontractor was entitled to recover under the theories of implied contracts and unjust enrichment, even though the subcontract contained a “pay-if-paid” clause. All parties appealed. In particular, the general contractor asserted that the pay-if-paid provision in the subcontract precluded recovery by the subcontractor. The issue was petitioned to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky was whether a pay-if-paid provision was enforceable as between a general contractor and subcontractor, and if so, whether the subcontractor could nevertheless pursue the owner directly for payment notwithstanding a lack of privity between the owner and subcontractor. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
    Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at