BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    Medical building expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas production housing expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas multi family housing expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas custom home expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas structural steel construction expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas landscaping construction expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas industrial building expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas high-rise construction expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas hospital construction expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas tract home expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas parking structure expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas office building expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas institutional building expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas housing expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas casino resort expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas townhome construction expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas condominiums expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas concrete tilt-up expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas low-income housing expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas Subterranean parking expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas retail construction expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas condominium expert witness Pawnee Rock Kansas
    Pawnee Rock Kansas OSHA expert witness constructionPawnee Rock Kansas stucco expert witnessPawnee Rock Kansas roofing and waterproofing expert witnessPawnee Rock Kansas construction expertsPawnee Rock Kansas consulting engineersPawnee Rock Kansas concrete expert witnessPawnee Rock Kansas eifs expert witness
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Pawnee Rock, 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 Pawnee Rock 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
    Pawnee Rock Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

    Wichita Area Builders Association
    Local # 1780
    730 N Main St
    Wichita, KS 67203

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Pawnee Rock Kansas Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Pawnee Rock Kansas


    Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

    Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance

    S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.

    New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI

    Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

    Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

    Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

    Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

    Scarce Cemetery Space Creates Prices to Die For: Cities

    Hawaii Court Finds No Bad Faith, But Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Survives Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Action

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump

    3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry

    Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

    Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

    Nevada Senate Rejects Construction Defect Bill

    #12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

    Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

    San Diego County Considering Updates to Green Building Code

    Defining a Property Management Agreement

    Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

    Former Hoboken, New Jersey Mayor Disbarred for Taking Bribes

    Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

    Employees Versus Independent Contractors

    ARUP, Rethinking Green Infrastructure

    State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

    A Changing Climate for State Policy-Making Regarding Climate Change

    San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

    Governor Brown Signs Legislation Aimed at Curbing ADA Accessibility Abuses in California

    Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I

    Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

    Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire

    Better Building Rules Would Help U.K.'s Flooding Woes, CEP Says

    Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

    Treasure Island Sues Beach Trail Designer over Concrete Defects

    2016 California Construction Law Upate

    Steven L. Heisdorffer Joins Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

    Erector Tops Out 850-Foot-Tall Rainier Square Tower in Only 10 Months

    An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

    Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

    Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments

    Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

    Harmon Towers to Be Demolished without Being Finished

    MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk

    Construction Lien Needs to Be Recorded Within 90 Days from Lienor’s Final Furnishing

    State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

    Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

    California Case That Reads Like Russian Novel Results in Less Than Satisfying Result for Both Project Owner and Contractors

    Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

    Do Hurricane-Prone Coastal States Need to Update their Building Codes?
    Corporate Profile

    PAWNEE ROCK KANSAS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    The Pawnee Rock, 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 Pawnee Rock'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
    Pawnee Rock, Kansas

    Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit

    February 03, 2020 —
    When preparing a contractor’s final payment affidavit, I always suggest for a contractor (or anyone in privity of contract with the owner) to identify the undisputed amounts their accounting reflects is owed to ALL subcontractors, etc., regardless of whether that entity preserved their lien rights. If the contractor provided a payment bond, I footnote this simply to support that none of the lower-tiered subcontractors have lien rights or are the traditional “lienor.” (Thus, there is no prejudice to the owner if an entity is inadvertently omitted from the affidavit.) There are times, however, where a contractor does not identify a subcontractor that did not serve a notice to owner and, therefore, has no valid lien rights. Or, a contractor omits a lienor that actually did serve a notice to owner and preserve its lien rights; this happens. There was an older First District Court of Appeals case that harshly (and, quite, unfairly) held that the contractor must identify everyone in the final payment affidavit regardless of whether that entity timely served a notice to owner or their lien is invalid. This case, however, predated, a 1998 statutory change to Florida’s Lien Law. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive

    July 06, 2020 —
    ACS is proud to announce that in its review of the top 50 national construction law firms, Construction Executive has ranked ACS as the top 23rd national firm, and first among firms with a majority of their attorneys based in Washington. Now in its 18th year of publication, Construction Executive is the leading trade magazine about the business of construction. In its June 2020 issue, CE published a comprehensive ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™ featuring breakouts and analysis accompanied by an article in which leading legal experts discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the construction industry. To determine the 2020 ranking, CE asked hundreds of US law firms with a construction practice to complete a survey. Data collected included: 1) 2019 revenues from the firm’s construction practice; 2) number of attorneys in the firm’s construction practice; 3) percentage of firm’s total revenues derived from its construction practice; 4) number of AEC clients; and 5) the year in which the construction practice was established. The ranking was determined by an algorithm that weighted the aforementioned factors in descending order of importance. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Blog
    Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

    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 wally@zimolonglaw.com

    White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

    July 06, 2020 —
    The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

    May 18, 2020 —
    The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019). Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs. CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible. 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 te@hawaiilawyer.com

    How to Build Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure

    July 20, 2020 —
    Ohio University has released a guide titled, An Engineer’s Guide to Building Climate Change-Resilient Infrastructure. It was created for engineers, environmentalists, climate change communities, and construction organizations who are looking to share information about the importance of building cities that are able to fight growing climate threats. Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi Read the full story... Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Montrose III: Vertical Exhaustion Applies in Upper Layers of Excess Coverage

    May 18, 2020 —
    In Montrose Chemical Corp. of Cal. v. Superior Court (No. S244737, filed 4/6/20) (Montrose III), the California Supreme Court held that, as between excess insurers at differing levels of coverage, a rule of “vertical exhaustion” or “elective stacking” applies, whereby the insured may access any excess policy once it has exhausted other excess policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The Court limited the rule to excess insurance, stating that “[b]ecause the question is not presented here, we do not decide when or whether an insured may access excess policies before all primary insurance covering all relevant policy periods has been exhausted.” Montrose manufactured the insecticide DDT in Torrance from 1947 to 1982. In 1990, the state and federal governments sued Montrose for environmental contamination and Montrose entered into partial consent decrees agreeing to pay for cleanup. Montrose claimed to have expended in excess of $100 million doing so, and asserted that its future liability could exceed that amount. 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

    M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic

    April 06, 2020 —
    Increasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents. Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Smith, White and Williams and Patrick Devine, White and Williams Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of