BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    parking structure expert witness Richton Park Illinois retail construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois townhome construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois Subterranean parking expert witness Richton Park Illinois structural steel construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois landscaping construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois multi family housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois concrete tilt-up expert witness Richton Park Illinois condominium expert witness Richton Park Illinois industrial building expert witness Richton Park Illinois custom home expert witness Richton Park Illinois hospital construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois low-income housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois high-rise construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois custom homes expert witness Richton Park Illinois casino resort expert witness Richton Park Illinois tract home expert witness Richton Park Illinois institutional building expert witness Richton Park Illinois office building expert witness Richton Park Illinois mid-rise construction expert witness Richton Park Illinois housing expert witness Richton Park Illinois Medical building expert witness Richton Park Illinois
    Richton Park Illinois construction expert testimonyRichton Park Illinois expert witness commercial buildingsRichton Park Illinois building consultant expertRichton Park Illinois slope failure expert witnessRichton Park Illinois construction expert witness public projectsRichton Park Illinois reconstruction expert witnessRichton Park Illinois expert witness concrete failure
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Richton Park, 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 Richton Park 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

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Richton Park 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

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10

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

    Richton Park 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

    Richton Park Illinois Construction Expert Witness 10/ 10


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Richton Park Illinois


    The Most Expensive Travel Construction Flops

    The Business of Engineering: An Interview with Matthew Loos

    Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

    New Joint Venture to Develop a New Community in Orange County, California

    Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

    St. Petersburg Florida’s Tallest Condo Tower Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects

    Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

    Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies

    No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

    Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    Just Because You Record a Mechanic’s Lien Doesn’t Mean You Get Notice of Foreclosure

    Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

    South Carolina School District Investigated by IRS and FBI

    First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    SkenarioLabs Uses AI for Property Benchmarking

    Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

    Approaches to Managing Job Site Inventory

    Be Careful with “Green” Construction

    Consequential Damages Can Be Recovered Against Insurer In Breach Of Contract

    Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities

    Is the Manhattan Bank of America Tower a Green Success or Failure?

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

    Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding

    Unbilled Costs Remain in Tutor Perini's Finances

    Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

    Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District

    'Major' Mass. Gas Leak Follows Feds Call For Regulation Changes One Year After Deadly Gas Explosions

    Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors

    Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

    Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects

    Fraudster Sells 24-Bedroom ‘King’s Speech’ London Mansion

    Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers

    Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

    Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

    When is a Contract not a Contract?

    Understanding Lien Waivers

    The Best Lawyers in America© Peer Review Names Eight Newmeyer & Dillion Partners in Multiple Categories and Two Partners as Orange County’s Lawyers of the Year in Construction and Insurance Law

    Expired Contract Not Revived Due to Sovereign Immunity and the Ex Contractu Clause

    State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

    No Hiring Surge by Homebuilders Says Industry Group

    Tesla’s Solar Roof Pricing Is Cheap Enough to Catch Fire

    Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

    Plan Ahead for the Inevitable Murphy’s Law Related Accident

    A Lot of Cheap Housing Is About to Get Very Expensive

    Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site

    Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

    Home Prices Beat Estimates With 0.8% Gain in November

    Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects
    Corporate Profile

    RICHTON PARK ILLINOIS CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

    Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

    June 25, 2019 —
    The recent opinion in the property insurance coverage dispute, Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1232a (Fla. 4thDCA 2019), discusses the doctrine known as an insurer’s “confession of judgment.” In this case, an insured suffered water damage from a pipe leak. The insurer paid the insured $6,000 because of sublimits in the property insurance policy. There was a $5,000 sublimit for mold and a $1,000 sublimit for water leakage that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. The insured sued the insurer for covered water damage arguing that the sublimits did not apply. After the lawsuit was filed, an agreed order was entered that stayed the case pending an appraisal. The appraisal award did not apply the $1,000 sublimit to the water damage from the pipe leak and segregated out damage for mold. (The insurer already paid the mold sublimit). The insurer ended up paying the appraisal award for the water damage caused by the pipe leak after deducting its pre-lawsuit sublimit payment. The insurer paid the award and did NOT challenge the application of the $1,000 sublimit in court, although it could have since coverage issues are decided by courts. 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

    Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.

    August 20, 2019 —
    Lump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract. This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions. In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract. 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

    White House Hopefuls Make Pitches to Construction Unions

    May 20, 2019 —
    As the 2020 presidential election draws nearer, many Democratic hopefuls are beginning to seek construction unions’ support. Eight declared candidates made their pitches to members of the North America’s Building Trades Unions at the group’s legislative conference April 9-10 in Washington, D.C. Several promised a major infrastructure package of $1 trillion or more, which aligns with the trades’ legislative agenda. But many seeking endorsement will wrestle with balancing calls for a green economy and unions’ demand for traditional oil and gas sector jobs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Buckley, ENR
    ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

    California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

    November 12, 2019 —
    On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of

    Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

    November 12, 2019 —
    The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
    Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

    Buy American Under President Trump: What to Know and Where We’re Heading

    August 20, 2019 —
    On January 31, 2019, President Trump signed an Executive Order on Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects, placing continued emphasis on the importance of “the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States.” This order builds upon the President’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order, which he issued in April of 2017. The 2017 Order increased enforcement of standing Buy American laws and called for federal agencies to explore new possibilities regarding domestic preferences. In part, the 2017 Order required every agency to “scrupulously monitor, enforce, and comply with Buy American laws,” and to minimize the use of waivers of these laws. The 2019 Order instructs federal agencies to develop rules to encourage contractors to comply with these preferences to the maximum extent practicable in any infrastructure project that receives any indirect federal government assistance. This includes recipients of loans, loan guarantees, grants, insurance subsidies or other forms of financing. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Jamie Oberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
    Ms. Oberg may be contacted at joberg@pecklaw.com

    Colorado Supreme Court Decision Could Tarnish Appraisal Process for Policyholders

    September 16, 2019 —
    On June 24, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the plain language of appraisal provisions in insurance policies, requiring “impartial appraisers,” direct appraisers to be “unbiased, disinterested, and unswayed by personal interest,” regardless of who hires them, and prohibits the party-appointed appraisers from acting as advocates. A common and attractive alternative dispute resolution option, the appraisal process usually entails the policyholder and insurer each hiring their own appraiser, who estimates how much the claim is worth. These appraisers also select a third-party umpire, and if they cannot agree upon one, a court appoints one. The umpire analyzes the conflicting estimates and presents a number to resolve the dispute. If two of the three parties agree with the outcome, the number becomes binding. Owners Ins. Co. v. Dakota Station II Condo. Ass'n, Inc.1 began when Dakota Station II Condominium Association Inc. (“Dakota”) and its insurer, Owners Insurance Company (“Owners”) could not agree on how to value two claims arising out of weather damage. To settle the differences and come to a resolution, Dakota invoked the appraisal provision in the insurance policy instructing each party to select its own “competent and impartial appraiser.” Ultimately, a court-appointed umpire considered six cost categories in dispute and adopted four of Owners’ estimates and two of Dakota’s. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Mr. Pepe may be contacted at mvp@sdvlaw.com

    In Pricey California, Renters Near Respite From Landlord Gouging

    September 16, 2019 —
    The housing crisis engulfing California has state lawmakers racing to pass bills that would boost construction and stop corporate landlords from egregiously jacking up rents. The bills overcame key hurdles last week and are due for final votes before the legislature adjourns on Sept. 13. The hardest-fought measure would set a higher standard for evictions and cap annual rent increases at 5% plus the rate of inflation. While that’s below the typical pace of lease hikes -- and the bill has many caveats for landlords -- it would still mark the state’s most significant new protection for tenants in decades. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg