• Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    condominiums expert witness Palos Heights Illinois Medical building expert witness Palos Heights Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Palos Heights Illinois multi family housing expert witness Palos Heights Illinois parking structure expert witness Palos Heights Illinois custom homes expert witness Palos Heights Illinois production housing expert witness Palos Heights Illinois institutional building expert witness Palos Heights Illinois retail construction expert witness Palos Heights Illinois townhome construction expert witness Palos Heights Illinois condominium expert witness Palos Heights Illinois casino resort expert witness Palos Heights Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Palos Heights Illinois low-income housing expert witness Palos Heights Illinois housing expert witness Palos Heights Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Palos Heights Illinois tract home expert witness Palos Heights Illinois office building expert witness Palos Heights Illinois custom home expert witness Palos Heights Illinois hospital construction expert witness Palos Heights Illinois industrial building expert witness Palos Heights Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Palos Heights Illinois
    Palos Heights Illinois construction expert witness consultantPalos Heights Illinois construction expert witnessesPalos Heights Illinois roofing construction expertPalos Heights Illinois construction cost estimating expert witnessPalos Heights Illinois civil engineering expert witnessPalos Heights Illinois expert witness structural engineerPalos Heights Illinois stucco expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Palos Heights, 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 Palos Heights 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

    Palos Heights Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc
    Local # 1434
    3695 Darlene Ct Ste 102
    Aurora, IL 60504

    Palos Heights Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Fox Valley
    Local # 1431
    PO Box 1146
    Saint Charles, IL 60174

    Palos Heights 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

    Palos Heights Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Kankakee
    Local # 1445
    221 S Schuyler Ave Ste B
    Kankakee, IL 60901

    Palos Heights 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

    Palos Heights Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria
    Local # 1455
    1599 N Main Street
    East Peoria, IL 61611

    Palos Heights Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Palos Heights Illinois

    7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)

    Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds Curb Construction Falls Within The Scope Of CASPA

    Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    Architects Group Lowers U.S. Construction Forecast

    Contractors Sued for Slip

    Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects

    WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

    Damp Weather Not Good for Wood

    Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

    Courts Favor Arbitration in Two Recent Construction Dispute Cases

    Seattle Condos, Close to Waterfront, Construction Defects Included

    Chinese Brooklyn-to-Los Angeles Plans Surge: Real Estate

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    Sales of New U.S. Homes Fell in February to Five-Month Low

    Toll Brothers Shows how the Affluent Buyer is Driving Up Prices

    The Construction Lawyer as Counselor

    Google’s Floating Mystery Boxes Solved?

    What are Section 8(f) Agreements?

    Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

    CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

    Building Permits Up in USA Is a Good Sign

    Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

    Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

    Contractors Should Be Optimistic that the Best Value Tradeoff Process Will Be Employed by Civilian Agencies

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

    The General Assembly Adds Some Clarity to Contracts and Unlicensed Contractors

    Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

    Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High

    Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

    Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

    Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt

    Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?

    A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

    Trump Abandons Plan for Council on Infrastructure

    Home Buyer May Be Third Party Beneficiary of Property Policy

    Construction defect firm Angius & Terry moves office to Roseville

    Private Mediations Do Not Toll The Five-Year Prosecution Statute

    Construction Defects in Roof May Close School

    Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

    Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

    Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

    House Passes Bill to Delay EPA Ozone Rule

    Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages

    Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

    Legal Implications of 3D Printing in Construction Loom

    Montreal Bridge Builders Sue Canada Over New Restrictions

    Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

    Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests

    Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women
    Corporate Profile


    Leveraging from more than 7,000 construction defect and claims related expert witness designations, the Palos Heights, Illinois Construction Expert Witness Group provides a wide range of trial support and consulting services to Palos Heights' 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
    Palos Heights, Illinois

    Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

    August 13, 2019 —
    Modern man lives under the illusion of being the most intelligent being out there. This is the paradox of human nature; we all want to make the best decisions with the knowledge we have at any given time, but on the other hand, our thinking is largely based on how our ancestors organized the world in their time. Possibly the most tangible example of this in our everyday lives is infrastructure. While there seems to be plenty of candidates offering new solutions to the already existing urban environment, there are not that many looking to challenge the current urban order. Cities are full of talk—but who walks the walk? Re-imagining Urban Environments Olli Hakanen, a long-term specialist in re-imagining workspaces and urban environments, has an extensive background in both architecture and consultancy. His latest venture, Respace, aims to address how urban environments are being developed to better suit the needs of their residents as well as the environment. According to the ideology behind Respace, instead of always building something new, often all that is needed is a re-thinking. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jenni Ripatti, AEC Business
    AEC Business may be contacted at

    Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

    May 06, 2019 —
    It’s one of the most quoted phrases in legal history: “Shouting fire in a [crowded] theater.” It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1919 decision in Schenck v. U.S. and has come to stand for the proposition that not all speech, in particular dangerous speech, is protected by the First Amendment. The next case also involves a false alarm. But not of the First Amendment kind. In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B281411 (March 8, 2019), a false alarm investigated by maintenance engineering staff led to a Privette Doctrine claim against a property owner when a ladder on which the maintenance staff was standing slipped on wet flooring. Johnson v. Raytheon Lawrence Johnson worked as a maintenance engineer for ABM Facilities Services, Inc. ABM was hired by Raytheon Company, Inc. to staff the control room at one of Raytheon’s facilities in Southern California. Among other things, control room staff monitored water cooling towers owned by Raytheon to ensure that the water in the cooling towers were maintained at minimum levels. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
    Mr. Murai may be contacted at

    Sinking Buildings on the Rise?

    July 01, 2019 —
    By now everyone in the construction and insurance industries is familiar with the 58-story Millennium Tower building in San Francisco that has sunk 17 inches and tilted another 14 inches to the northwest. Another recent New York lawsuit alleges that a 58-story luxury Manhattan condo high-rise is also sinking and causing significant damage. With construction booming in the Southeast and other areas with questionable soils, sinking building cases may be on the rise. Given this reality, the issue of subsidence should be of paramount importance to every construction and insurance professional when insuring a project. Most insurance carriers will include a subsidence and/or other earth movement exclusion on a commercial general liability ("CGL") quote for insurance as a matter of course. Construction professionals (owners/developers, general contractors, and subcontractors) or their brokers may be under the mistaken impression that they have no choice but to accept these subsidence exclusions as part of a standard construction policy. This is not the case. To the contrary, most insurance carriers are willing to remove subsidence exclusions if the underwriters are provided with acceptable geotechnical/soils reports when considering the project. The insured construction professional often pushes back on the insurance carrier's request for soils reports because the insured sees the request as an unnecessary hassle, expense or unwelcome interference in the job. However, the carrier's soils review is designed to benefit everyone. If potential soils issues are discovered during the underwriting process they can be addressed at the outset of the project rather than after the project is built, which will typically cost substantially more to remedy. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the condition of the soils at the outset of the project allows the risk management team to recognize any potential issues and ensure that the proper coverage is obtained in order to provide protection down the road. Even if the insurance carrier charges more money to sign off on questionable soils after a review of the reports, the slight increase in premium is likely a worthwhile investment in the event of a subsidence loss. The lesson is that the insured should not blindly accept a subsidence exclusion and should negotiate its removal. The insured should provide its broker and the insurance carrier the information they need in order to make a fully-informed decision as it pertains to the soils. Once the insurance carrier has had the opportunity to review and sign off on the condition of the soil, the carrier should feel comfortable enough to remove any subsidence exclusions or other similar earth movement limitations. Subsidence is a relatively straightforward issue to deal with as long as the project team’s lawyers, brokers, risk managers and insurance company underwriters are working together toward the common goal of properly evaluating the risk and adequately insuring the project. This simple cooperative process between the entire risk management team could mean the difference between being covered or not covered in the event of a loss related to earth movement. Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at The content contained herein is published online for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. The transmission of information by email, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the author. Copyright 2019 © Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    What is an Alternative Dispute Resolution?

    August 26, 2019 —
    Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) is a term that refers to a number of processes that can be used to resolve a conflict, dispute, or claim. ADR processes are alternatives to having a court decide the dispute in trial. ADR processes can be used to resolve any type of dispute including but not limited those related to families, neighborhoods, employment, businesses, housing, personal injury, consumers, and the environment. ADR is usually less formal, less expensive, and less time-consuming than a trial. Most Common Types of Alternative Dispute Resolutions Mediation In mediation, an impartial person called a “mediator” helps the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

    Environmental Roundup – April 2019

    May 06, 2019 —
    Besides showers, this April brought a number of notable new environmental decisions issued by the federal courts. Before your mind turns to May and its flowers, here’s a summary: 1. DC Circuit. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of State of New York, et al. v. EPA. In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the Congress established the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, composed of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and a portion of Virginia. Recently, several of these states requested EPA to expand this region to include the “upwind states” of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the remaining portions of Virginia. Doing so would assist the “downwind” states in complying with EPA’s 2008 Ozone standard. EPA rejected this request, which was then appealed to the DC Circuit by the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Because of its unique properties, ozone created by emissions in the upwind states can be transported to the downwind states, thus allegedly hampering their ability to cope with EPA ozone standards. The court agreed that EPA has the authority to expand the Northeast Transport Ozone Transport Region, but it also has the ability to exercise its reasonable discretion not to do so. In addition, the agency’s decision to rely instead on the remedies available to it in in the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision was reasonable and adequately justified, and the court accordingly upheld the agency’s decision. The court also noted that other remedies may be available to the downwind states, just not this one. 2. DC Circuit. The Court also decided on April 23, 2019 the case of Air Transport Association of America v. Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA held that the payments made by the City of Portland’s airport’s utility city charges for offsite stormwater drainage and Superfund remediation was not an “impermissible diversion” of airport revenues or in violation of the “Anti-Head Tax Act,” which is codified at 49 USC Section 40116(b) and which prohibits collecting a tax on persons travelling in air commerce. Here, the charges are assessed against the airport for the use by the airport of the city’s water and sewage services. The Superfund assessment is based on the fact that the Willamette River which runs through downtown Portland could make the city a Superfund potentially responsible party, and the cty is assessing all rate payers—including the airport—a Superfund assessment. The airport is federally funded and is owned and operated by the Port of Portland, and the Port pays a combined sewer, stormwater /water bill with multiple line items including these contested items. The court notes that federal law, in particular 49 USC Section 47107(k)(2), authorizes airport revenues to be used for the operating costs of the airport receiving federal funding, and the FAA could reasonably determine that these general expenses are authorized airport “operating costs” even though the city services are provided outside the boundaries of the airport. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at

    US Appeals Court Slams FERC on Long-Muddled State Environmental Permits

    March 27, 2019 —
    What may be the nation’s largest dam removal project—delayed for years by regulatory and legal disputes of a utility, stakeholders and states over licensing and environmental permits—now may have new momentum after a hard-hitting January federal appeals court ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR and Debra K. Rubin, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Do You Really Want Mandatory Arbitration in Your Construction Contract?

    June 25, 2019 —
    If you are in construction, you have likley run across (or even drafted) a dispute resolution provision into your construction contract. If you’ve been building for any length of time, you’ve read dispute resolution provisions containing mandatory arbitration clauses. These clauses can be found in the AIA documents and in many of the contracts that I review for my clients in my role as construction lawyer and counselor. More often than not, these arbitration clauses require arbitration (read “private court”) and refer to one of several sets of rules, though most likely the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Construction Industry rules. In Virginia, as in most of the United States, these clauses are read liberally and enforced by courts except in limited cases such as waiver. The main justification for requiring arbitration over litigation is to avoid the fees and expense of the litigation process. In the right circumstances, arbitration does just that. With a carefully drafted arbitration clauses and with the right case that requires expertise in construction that a judge does not have (they have to liten to all manner of disputes so are necessarily generalists), arbitration can and should be a streamlined and less expensive version of litigation. However, in my time as a construction attorney, I have more often run into situations where the arbitration process is at least equally expensive and frankly not much more streamlined. The additional administrative burden coupled with the possibility of paying for at least half of the hourly charges of one to three arbitrators is often not worth the additional expertise of those arbitrators. Many construction claims simply come down to non-payment and whether the work was performed properly. In my opinion, the fine judges in the Commonwealth of Virginia are more than capable of hearing this evidence and making a ruling. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
    Mr. Hill may be contacted at

    Colombia's $15 Billion Road Plan Bounces Back From Bribe Scandal

    June 03, 2019 —
    Colombia’s $15 billion highway program has come roaring back to life as laws to protect investors help confidence recover from a massive kickback scandal that had paralyzed the sector. Public works expanded 8.5% in the first quarter from a year earlier, a rare bright spot in an economy that has struggled to grow since oil prices crashed nearly five years ago. Colombia ranks 102 out of 140 nations in road infrastructure quality, behind Bolivia and Sierra Leone, according to World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness report. Fixing that problem, which has bedeviled Colombian industry and agriculture for centuries, can boost growth for a generation, the government believes. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Oscar Medina, Bloomberg